Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Carded
I got carded today at the grocery store. I use the self checkout lane because I have poor social skills and chit chatting with the cashier gives me the heebies. Except for that one Friday night in New York when me and the guys were loading up on liquor for a long weekend of drinking up at Lake Chautauqua and the CLEARLY underage chick clerks were having one of those phony, 'hope you overhear' conversations along the lines of, boy I sure wish we could find a party to go to. That was cool. Wait, no, that gave me the heebies too. Oh yeah, and then a few months later the story broke about the drug dealer who infected half the young girls in the Chautauqua area with AIDS when they had sex with him in exchange for drugs. The moral of the story is: don't get duped into supplying alcohol for underage girls in exchange for sex, even if they are hot.
What was I talking about?
Oh yeah.
When you buy beer in the self checkout, someone has to come over and hit a button that says you are old enough. I swipe the beer first, so that I can keep working while waiting for someone to come over. So here comes the lady from behind me and she says, "Can I see your ID?" I turn around, reaching for my wallet, and she says, "Oh." Long pause. "You looked younger from behind."
I don't even know what to make of that.
What was I talking about?
Oh yeah.
When you buy beer in the self checkout, someone has to come over and hit a button that says you are old enough. I swipe the beer first, so that I can keep working while waiting for someone to come over. So here comes the lady from behind me and she says, "Can I see your ID?" I turn around, reaching for my wallet, and she says, "Oh." Long pause. "You looked younger from behind."
I don't even know what to make of that.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
2012
So everyone says the world will end in December of 2012, due to the fact that the Mayan calendar ends then. We know this to be reliable information because the Mayans were so successful in the long run. You know what? I buy a calendar with pictures of kitty cats on it every year, and each year it ends on December 31st, and to my knowledge, the world has not ended on December 31st of any year. So for the folks that believe this, gather up the canned goods, lock yourself in the shelter, and we'll... uh... we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.
For the record, the Mayans were quite excellent astronomers and their calendar is based on repeating alignments of celestial bodies. Their long count of these events (a period of roughly 394.3 years) happens to end on December 20th, 2012. The long count marks our cyclical alignment with the galactic plane which last occurred in 1618, a year in which the world also did not end.
Their calendars had to be carved in rock, so my guess is that they just got tired after making so many copies, or figured that they had plenty of time to carve the next cycles.
So in summary, if you believe the world will end on Dec. 21st, 2012, you are an idiot.
For the record, the Mayans were quite excellent astronomers and their calendar is based on repeating alignments of celestial bodies. Their long count of these events (a period of roughly 394.3 years) happens to end on December 20th, 2012. The long count marks our cyclical alignment with the galactic plane which last occurred in 1618, a year in which the world also did not end.
Their calendars had to be carved in rock, so my guess is that they just got tired after making so many copies, or figured that they had plenty of time to carve the next cycles.
So in summary, if you believe the world will end on Dec. 21st, 2012, you are an idiot.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Should I Spend My Cash On A Boat Or Rock Gear?
Boats are for idiots.
Smart people have friends who have boats. You go hang out on the boat and drink their beer after they spent all spring covered in slime and shit scraping zebra mussels off the bottom (while you were rocking out and drinking whisky with hot groupies), and spending a thousand dollars to fill the gas tank to haul your drunk ass around the lake just so they can impress you. They can't even drink on the boat because they have to drive the thing. Ha ha, I am impressed... impressed by how dumb they are.
Rock wins. Boats lose.
Smart people have friends who have boats. You go hang out on the boat and drink their beer after they spent all spring covered in slime and shit scraping zebra mussels off the bottom (while you were rocking out and drinking whisky with hot groupies), and spending a thousand dollars to fill the gas tank to haul your drunk ass around the lake just so they can impress you. They can't even drink on the boat because they have to drive the thing. Ha ha, I am impressed... impressed by how dumb they are.
Rock wins. Boats lose.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
LETTERBOOKFACEPAGESPACE!!!
Okay, the "social media" thing is completely out of control. First of all "social" is entirely the wrong word. Social implies some sort of interaction between people, like a conversation. These media are more for people talking AT others, not TO them. Or more precisely, talking AT no one, since everyone is busy talking AT no one as well, and they simply don't have the time or desire to read what anyone else is "atting" to the world. (The irony is that no one is reading this, either)
My proposal is to streamline the process with the greatest social media site ever:
LETTEROTOMY!!!
Why spend all that time cobbling together words that no one will read, when a simple letter will do? Instead of, "m in bio clas - traci s so fat LOL", just post "M" to capture the spirit of the post in a fraction of the time. The name combines the concept of single letter communication with the lobotomization of users.
Here's a sample of how an "att" would look:
Q (posted 4 hours ago)
Comments
fIrSt PoSt!!!!!!!! GrRrLz RuLe!!! (Posted by: G 3 hours ago)
ROFLMAO!!!!! (Posted by: B 1 hour ago)
D!!!! (Posted by: L 14 minutes ago)
L ur such a fag (Posted by: T 6 minutes ago)
Simply awesome, if you ask me.
Oh, and by the way, I am totally reserving the rights to "Letterotomy", "atting", "atts", and the whole concept of single letter communication. I am going to be so rich.
My proposal is to streamline the process with the greatest social media site ever:
LETTEROTOMY!!!
Why spend all that time cobbling together words that no one will read, when a simple letter will do? Instead of, "m in bio clas - traci s so fat LOL", just post "M" to capture the spirit of the post in a fraction of the time. The name combines the concept of single letter communication with the lobotomization of users.
Here's a sample of how an "att" would look:
Q (posted 4 hours ago)
Comments
fIrSt PoSt!!!!!!!! GrRrLz RuLe!!! (Posted by: G 3 hours ago)
ROFLMAO!!!!! (Posted by: B 1 hour ago)
D!!!! (Posted by: L 14 minutes ago)
L ur such a fag (Posted by: T 6 minutes ago)
Simply awesome, if you ask me.
Oh, and by the way, I am totally reserving the rights to "Letterotomy", "atting", "atts", and the whole concept of single letter communication. I am going to be so rich.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Truth in media? Follow the money. Bonus: my two cents on fiscal policy!
I was talking with an old friend about where, oh where, can one find a truly unbiased political analysis? And I thought, for fiscal policy at least: investors. I've been investing as my "job" now for 18 months, and one thing that I've noticed is that no matter what is happening in the market, in the world, in politics, these guys can always find a way to make money. And that's all they care about. If Obama is pushing green jobs, they dump money into First Solar, if Cheney is bent on starting world war 3, they pour their capital into Halliburton. They don't care what's going on, they just find a way to take advantage of it. So these guys have a vested interest in trying to look at things on a factual basis, without a bunch of rhetoric or wishful thinking. If they engage in that, they are likely to lose their shirts in the market. So to get to the bottom of the health care "debate" (translation: ignorant shouting match), forget absolutely everything that people are talking about - none of it is relevant. Go to Motley Fool and read up on HMO and pharmaceutical stocks.
On that thread, I started digging around to see what investors thought of the economic stimulus plan, and was actually surprised to learn that Ronald Reagan also pushed through a $750 billion economic stimulus plan early in his first term (okay, Obama's is $787 billion, but Reagan's was 1981 dollars, so it was actually bigger). http://kemosabe.blogs.mu/2009/05/20/ronald-reagan-signed-his-750-billion-stimulus-plan-into-law-in-1981/ The key difference is that Reagan gave his stimulus primarily to the wealthiest Americans in the form of a massive reduction of the top tax bracket rates and claimed that the money would "trickle down" to the middle class. He paid for it by doubling the social security taxes paid mostly by the middle class, and then borrowing the money from the social security fund to pay current obligations. (I was also surprised to learn that the social security trust is actually just a bunch of IOUs http://www.blog-on-politics.com/obama/how-does-obamas-stimulus-package-compare-to-what-reagan-did-when-he-became-president ) Alas, it was not enough and we are still paying $100 billion a year in interest on the Reagan deficits. Reagan is the poster child for fiscal conservative policy. So, it would seem that fiscal conservatives are not opposed to handouts, just to handouts that go to someone other than them.
People also carp about Obama bailing out the auto industry. Okay, those guys mismanaged their businesses into the ground -- but what would have been the end result of the US auto industry finally and utterly collapsing? The entire economy would have imploded, and the cost to the government would have been much higher. So... lesser of two evils seems to be the case here. It turns out that Reaganomics also brought us a bailout of a failing industry - savings and loans. Although the bailout didn't actually happen until George Sr. took office, it was actually caused by Reagan's deregulation, making his policies doubly culpable. So, what is the difference between the two? Again, fiscal conservatives don't have a problem with handouts to their finance buddies, but balk at propping up a bunch of middle class auto workers. Case in point, look at how fast W jumped on giving $700 billion to the financial industry last year. Again, deregulation brought us that whole spectacle with derivatives and other intractable financial instruments that amounted to trading on hot air, but no one batted an eye at shoveling all that cash into the pockets of the very people that mismanaged us into the crisis. But, again, what would have been the end result and ultimate cost of the US financial industry utterly collapsing? Lesser of two evils.
In the end, it's all welfare. The government gives money to people in trouble who may or may not deserve it, depending on how much one believes that hardship is brought on by one's own actions (or lack thereof). There is fundamentally nothing different between the fiscal conservative and the fiscal liberal in this respect. Welfare is welfare. One group tries to get as much as possible into the hands of the top 1% on the backs of the other 99%, and the other group tries to redistribute the top 1%'s share down to the masses. $750 billion to the top one percent or $750 billion to the other ninety-nine percent - no difference in the federal bottom line, but a big difference to the bottom line of most individuals.
So which group is better? Which group has it right? I guess one's opinion boils down to two simple factors: 1) is the handout going into your pocket?, and 2) are you able to ignore #1 based on some belief (e.g., corporations and individuals should be encouraged to accumulate as much wealth as possible by any means necessary, my church teaches me to help the poor, I already pay to build bridges for the poor to live under, I believe I need to be able to pay my mortgage next month, whatever).
In the end, I tend my garden, manage my own affairs in such a way that I am reasonably insulated from the political winds, feel sad that the CFO of Enron escaped with $250 million, and it doesn't bother me that a chunk of my income goes to buy cereal for kids in the inner city.
On that thread, I started digging around to see what investors thought of the economic stimulus plan, and was actually surprised to learn that Ronald Reagan also pushed through a $750 billion economic stimulus plan early in his first term (okay, Obama's is $787 billion, but Reagan's was 1981 dollars, so it was actually bigger). http://kemosabe.blogs.mu/2009/05/20/ronald-reagan-signed-his-750-billion-stimulus-plan-into-law-in-1981/ The key difference is that Reagan gave his stimulus primarily to the wealthiest Americans in the form of a massive reduction of the top tax bracket rates and claimed that the money would "trickle down" to the middle class. He paid for it by doubling the social security taxes paid mostly by the middle class, and then borrowing the money from the social security fund to pay current obligations. (I was also surprised to learn that the social security trust is actually just a bunch of IOUs http://www.blog-on-politics.com/obama/how-does-obamas-stimulus-package-compare-to-what-reagan-did-when-he-became-president ) Alas, it was not enough and we are still paying $100 billion a year in interest on the Reagan deficits. Reagan is the poster child for fiscal conservative policy. So, it would seem that fiscal conservatives are not opposed to handouts, just to handouts that go to someone other than them.
People also carp about Obama bailing out the auto industry. Okay, those guys mismanaged their businesses into the ground -- but what would have been the end result of the US auto industry finally and utterly collapsing? The entire economy would have imploded, and the cost to the government would have been much higher. So... lesser of two evils seems to be the case here. It turns out that Reaganomics also brought us a bailout of a failing industry - savings and loans. Although the bailout didn't actually happen until George Sr. took office, it was actually caused by Reagan's deregulation, making his policies doubly culpable. So, what is the difference between the two? Again, fiscal conservatives don't have a problem with handouts to their finance buddies, but balk at propping up a bunch of middle class auto workers. Case in point, look at how fast W jumped on giving $700 billion to the financial industry last year. Again, deregulation brought us that whole spectacle with derivatives and other intractable financial instruments that amounted to trading on hot air, but no one batted an eye at shoveling all that cash into the pockets of the very people that mismanaged us into the crisis. But, again, what would have been the end result and ultimate cost of the US financial industry utterly collapsing? Lesser of two evils.
In the end, it's all welfare. The government gives money to people in trouble who may or may not deserve it, depending on how much one believes that hardship is brought on by one's own actions (or lack thereof). There is fundamentally nothing different between the fiscal conservative and the fiscal liberal in this respect. Welfare is welfare. One group tries to get as much as possible into the hands of the top 1% on the backs of the other 99%, and the other group tries to redistribute the top 1%'s share down to the masses. $750 billion to the top one percent or $750 billion to the other ninety-nine percent - no difference in the federal bottom line, but a big difference to the bottom line of most individuals.
So which group is better? Which group has it right? I guess one's opinion boils down to two simple factors: 1) is the handout going into your pocket?, and 2) are you able to ignore #1 based on some belief (e.g., corporations and individuals should be encouraged to accumulate as much wealth as possible by any means necessary, my church teaches me to help the poor, I already pay to build bridges for the poor to live under, I believe I need to be able to pay my mortgage next month, whatever).
In the end, I tend my garden, manage my own affairs in such a way that I am reasonably insulated from the political winds, feel sad that the CFO of Enron escaped with $250 million, and it doesn't bother me that a chunk of my income goes to buy cereal for kids in the inner city.
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Quick Lesson On G Chords
I downloaded some tablature for a Beatles song that I ran across at the folk guitar circle last week. For reference, the folk guitar circle experience typically follows this flow path: * I do not know this song * Wait, that guy seems to be playing D - G * I can totally fake it * Wow, that guy is NOT playing D - G * People are beginning to look at me * Perhaps I will sit here quietly and listen.
Anyway, I look at the tablature and there's all these crazy variants of the G. I know four chords and really don't have any interest in learning a fifth one, but I figured I would try them out anyway.
These sixths, sevenths, suspendeds, and whatnot look thusly: [x20030], [x20032] , [x20002] , etc. making them different from G major which looks like this: [320033]
I try strumming each of these up against a G major and guess what? I can't hear a difference. All those years of listening to Slayer at peak volume finally pay off - if I can't hear the difference, why bother? Just play the G major. Now I know most people can hear the difference, but I don't care about what they think as long as I'm happy.
In summary, four chords are plenty, and the Beatles were just showing off.
In D - G we trust.
Anyway, I look at the tablature and there's all these crazy variants of the G. I know four chords and really don't have any interest in learning a fifth one, but I figured I would try them out anyway.
These sixths, sevenths, suspendeds, and whatnot look thusly: [x20030], [x20032] , [x20002] , etc. making them different from G major which looks like this: [320033]
I try strumming each of these up against a G major and guess what? I can't hear a difference. All those years of listening to Slayer at peak volume finally pay off - if I can't hear the difference, why bother? Just play the G major. Now I know most people can hear the difference, but I don't care about what they think as long as I'm happy.
In summary, four chords are plenty, and the Beatles were just showing off.
In D - G we trust.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Daisy Duke
I was watching the Graham Norton show last week on the BBC, and they had a Dukes of Hazzard reunion. It was most entertaining. However two things struck me: 1) Tom Wopat (Luke Duke) acted (and I use that word loosely) as though he would rather be skinned alive than be any part of the spectacle, and, 2) Catherine Bach (Daisy Duke) sure got big.
What happened? I think mathematically it works out something like:
Here's the beginning of the show (I think the whole thing is there in chunks):
What happened? I think mathematically it works out something like:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Dangers
I bought some patio furniture today and when I was putting it together, I noticed the tags on the chairs say, "CAUTION - MADE IN CHINA" then have some mumblage about not letting fat people sit in the chairs. Perhaps they had some trouble in translation and the thoughts got jumbled, but then I started thinking, hey, it probably means exactly what it says.
I used to work for a company that did their manufacturing in China, and let me tell you, I'm more than a little worried about using these chairs...
I used to work for a company that did their manufacturing in China, and let me tell you, I'm more than a little worried about using these chairs...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
My Computer Is So Slow...
My computer runs so slow that oftentimes I wonder why nothing happens when I click the mouse. Now, however, I believe the problem may not be with the mouse, but with the cat. I don't know if those clowns at finallyfast.com could correct this problem or not.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Well here it is
I often find that I have things to say, but no one around who might appreciate them that I may say them to. Not meaning that I am alone. I just say things that are unappreciated. Or maybe just misunderstood. Probably just stupid. That would explain "the look" that I get so often when I open my mouth in public.
So I had been wondering, where might I be able to say things that are probably stupid, most likely misunderstood, and definitely unappreciated, without fear of "the look"? Yes. The Internet.
I tried Twitter for about an hour ( https://twitter.com/SupaG ), but found the 140 character limit frustrating. When saying stupid things, more words are better. So I will try to use Twitter for those spur-of-the-moment short ramblings like describing my cat trying to shove her fat head under the clothes dryer, and this blog for more protracted, painfully lengthy, essays on things that are of interest only to me.
Writing on the Internet is like penning an angry letter to someone and then shredding it instead of mailing it. You feel better, but no one is the wiser.
-- G
So I had been wondering, where might I be able to say things that are probably stupid, most likely misunderstood, and definitely unappreciated, without fear of "the look"? Yes. The Internet.
I tried Twitter for about an hour ( https://twitter.com/SupaG ), but found the 140 character limit frustrating. When saying stupid things, more words are better. So I will try to use Twitter for those spur-of-the-moment short ramblings like describing my cat trying to shove her fat head under the clothes dryer, and this blog for more protracted, painfully lengthy, essays on things that are of interest only to me.
Writing on the Internet is like penning an angry letter to someone and then shredding it instead of mailing it. You feel better, but no one is the wiser.
-- G
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
