A few thoughts on line dancing. I want to expand this into an essay later, but some thoughts that struck me when I saw a brief clip of linedancing on Top Gear.
One of the hosts (all British) is at an American Line dancing bar. You could tell this type of dancing is a genuine, embarrasing surprise to him. However that very foreignness that he felt belies the fact that line dancing is almost entirely unique in the modern world. It is a relic of history and a unique Americanness of an not--quite-dead past.
Line dancing started in the same cultural tradition
-LIke old formal dances of the 17th and 18th century, married with the informal community of civil war era, throw in some farming hickness, but make it wildly popular to a small but very vibrant young crowd.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
This is what happens when you listen to too much of the Bugle.
I was recently lying in bed with my girlfriend, talking about friends' upcoming weddings, and how silly it is to go through all that rigamarole. I stated that I wanted my wedding on a boat, with 1/4th of a stringed quartet playing all the music. The price would be lower and the setting memorable.
My girlfriend groggily asked "What are you talking about?"
"A boat and cost cellos." I replied.
"Please don't start this again." she groaned.
"What do you mean its too dangerous? Low rails? Hardly. The setting is perfect, and I already know what cuisine we'll have. We'll have soup prepared by the finest kosher chefs. That's right, Three Stew-Jews."
"Make it stop." She yelled into her pillow.
"We can't have just soup you say? Oh! Liver! with lots of Salts, man. We can't have an open bar of course. All that liquor will make your aunt Wilder and Pry her off the single men will be a full time job."
At this point my girlfriend just stopped responding.
"Are you Cross? Be Hope-ful. We'll have a great wedding yet. If anything, your anger is really missing the Marks. Brother!"
I'm only allowed to listen to The Bugle once a week now.
My girlfriend groggily asked "What are you talking about?"
"A boat and cost cellos." I replied.
"Please don't start this again." she groaned.
"What do you mean its too dangerous? Low rails? Hardly. The setting is perfect, and I already know what cuisine we'll have. We'll have soup prepared by the finest kosher chefs. That's right, Three Stew-Jews."
"Make it stop." She yelled into her pillow.
"We can't have just soup you say? Oh! Liver! with lots of Salts, man. We can't have an open bar of course. All that liquor will make your aunt Wilder and Pry her off the single men will be a full time job."
At this point my girlfriend just stopped responding.
"Are you Cross? Be Hope-ful. We'll have a great wedding yet. If anything, your anger is really missing the Marks. Brother!"
I'm only allowed to listen to The Bugle once a week now.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wine, Goddammit
I feel I've made a radical transformation in the last half year. I've become collected, calm, assured. Not the assuredness I carried 2 years ago (Jebus, really?), which was a cockiness built on momentary greatness, but one that is a comfortableness in my current phase in life. And I hate it. I hate that I'm happy. I hate that when I feel the most productive, the most in tune with nature, with the world, with that inner poet, is when I am the most morose, the most despondent. In my happiness I have the tools to take on the world. In my sadness I have the will. The two never come together.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
A Response to "The Story of Cap-and-Trade"
While Grist did it better, I thought I should give my own thoughts to this silly little video (response not edited for grammar or spelling whatsoever).
Despite my position as an advocate for the current climate change/clean energy legislation in the Senate, I, like many on this list-serv, have problems with the legislation as written. One would have to be quite blind not to see that there aren't many inherent weaknesses in this bill that will need to be addressed--whether that be during the senate debate over this bill, or in subsequent legislation to strengthen the US's response to global warming. I've heard much about this cartoon "The Story of Cap and Trade," and considering Annie Leonard's great work in Story of Stuff, I was expecting a thoughtful contribution to the discussion over this legislation, and perhaps some concrete ideas on how to improve the senate's efforts.
To my dismay, Miss Leonard's criticisms on the current bill are either so vague as to be discounted entirely, or completely off base.
Claim 1 (at about 1:05 in the video): She starts the cartoon with perhaps the most asinine argument of the whole video: carbon markets are bad, and are a nefarious scheme of financial demons. Paraphrased: Enron and Goldman Sachs designed cap-and-trade, and are making huge claims to lure your "everyone and their grandmother in" and then are going to burst this new economic bubble and ruin us all.
First off--where are her sources that Goldman Sachs and Enron designed this program? Enron certainly pushed (in the early 90's) for deregulating energy markets, and had a big hand in decoupling a lot of energy commodities from the producers in order to make them a tradeable commodity. Part of that deregulation they abused to the great horror of this nation. Part of that decoupling has produced enormous gains in energy efficiency throughout California. NONE of this has anything to do with the current legislation, nor has Enron, an essentially defunct corporation--had a hand in authoring current climate change legislation. Goldman Sachs is certainly researching how to trade on any new carbon market--just as they did in with the Sulfur Dioxide market in the 90's (which worked quite well)--because that's what banks do. Their research into it doesn't somehow mean that they are a creating a nefarious plot on the backs of climate legislation to screw over grandma. Her entire first argument seems to be to throw around scare words--enron, goldman sachs, scam, subprime mortgages, market--wave her hands suggestively, and voila carbon trading is bad. In fact her whole first argument seems to be just an implied idea that markets in general are bad, despite the hundreds of stable, well policed commodity markets we have in the U.S. and around the world. Or is somehow a market for carbon uniquely bad compared to other markets? The best line in this argument is "...creating a $3 trillion dollar bubble. But when this one bursts, it won't just take down our stock portfolios, it could take down everything." How? And where is the proof that this commodity market is inherently inclined to burst? Her argument in this sector, and throughout the cartoon, is to call cap-and-trade a racket or scam, without truly explaining how it is, in fact, a racket or a scam. But hey, repeat the words enough and they must be true.
Claim 2: (Summarily) Cap-and-Trade didn't work in Europe:
Except that it did. The market in Europe had a rocky start--no one can deny that. Any America's will probably have a rocky start too. Almost any new system will. Still, carbon output in Europe is down between 3 and 5% (depending on the source) or about 100 billion tons a year.
Claim 3 (about minute 4:00): Permit giveaways are bad and (implied) are only benefiting the polluters.
Yes, permit giveaways are bad from a pure standpoint of bringing down carbon production. However one of the reasons many of the permits have been given away has been to keep energy prices stable (a thing that Ms. Leonard herself seems to want). In the Waxman-Markey bill, 80% of the permits given away are for consumer and public protection. The other 20%? Pretty much corporate giveaways that really shouldn't be tolerated. You can argue all you want over whether or not permits should be given away, and how much these giveaways really protect consumers. In fact, I'll probably side with the idea that we shouldn't give them away 90% of the time. However, don't mischaracterize these give-aways as nefarious plots and schemes by goldman sachs and corporate polluters. Except for that othe 20%...criticize that all you want.
Through all this, she criticizes that energy prices went up under cap-and-trade in Europe. Keep that in mind when she explore her solutions.
Where her argument should be--and the truth of the matter is--is that the giveaways that are bad are the result of a very powerful, very well connected oil, coal, and energy industry. Scrapping this bill and starting anew will do nothing to reduce these industries power. Any bill we produce is going to be weakened, watered down by industries that have near complete access to our legislators. If a weakened bill means we shouldn't pass anything then we are never going to pass a bill. It seems like a bitter pill to swallow, and one that Miss Leonard refuses. However that refusal will mean we will never have climate change legislation. A better tactic is to pass the strongest possible bill, and as soon as that is passed start working towards strengthening it with new legislation, new amendments.
Claim 4 (min 4:45). We should sell those permits and put the money to work to stop climate change.
I don't have an argument against the idea of selling the permits. What I have a problem with is her implication that giving away permits raised energy prices (bad) and lined the pockets of carbon-traders (bad). Instead we should sell the permits...which will somehow not raise energy prices like the giveaways did, and won't raise a profit for the carbon traders. Selling permits will give a greater jumpstart to carbon reduction, but won't solve any of investment problems she's announced. And her other legislative proposals (such as cap and dividend), while quite good ideas, are still subject to that powerful oil, coal, and energy lobby from above. They would be weakened just like our cap-and-trade legislation. The problem isn't inherent in cap-and-trade, as she seems to imply, but in our political system.
Claim 5 (min 6:45ish): Offsets are bad.
Annie Leonard isn't the only one I know to use this line of argument. She takes anecdotal evidence of abuse (and there will be abuse--just like there is abuse in any system, no matter how perfect), and conflates these anecdotes with offsets in general, and then claims offsets as a whole are bad. I know of a man whose car was hit by a train. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt, was thrown from the car and lived. The rest of the passengers in the car perished. Does this mean seatbelts are bad? Of course not. His story was unique and can't be applied to the whole system. In reality, the idea of offsets, and the system that will be created to utilize them, is extremely complex. There will be abuses, but there will be a lot of gains. A lot of the success or failure of offsets will rely on the stringency of legislation governing offsets (which in Waxman-Markey are suprisingly stringent) and the development and implementation of technology to govern the offsets. Due to satellite imagine, and desktop programs like Google Earth, the ability to monitor offset programs (such as forest preservation in Brazil) has made leaps and bounds in the last few years, and is well suited to effectively monitor most type of offset programs. Abuses will slip through the cracks, and some of those abuses will be quite bad, but that does not make the entire system bad or cap-and-trade meaningless.
Claim 6 (Minute 7:10): Cap-and-trade distracts from 'real solutions.'
What solutions where? To be fair, there are of course many solutions out there. But Ms. Leonard just decries this 'distraction' and then fails to point out any 'real solution' in her final argument. She does mention a cap, but doesn't point out how a cap is more or less effective then CAP-and-trade.
"We are not even close to a global cap on carbon to begin with, and duh, that is the whole point of cap-and trade." Global cap: no. National cap? Yes (albeit one that needs to be stronger). And the whole point of cap and trade isn't to figure out a global cap, its to implement a system that, once the cap is establish, can work towards reaching that goal.
"We don't need to let these guys design the solution. We, us, our governments can make the laws ourselves." Again, how is this different than what has happened? Did not the bills she is criticizing come from the legislative process (nefarious Goldman Sachs implications aside)? How will some other bill (cap and dividend, carbon tax, whatever) come through the legislative process fully strong and ready to fight pollution?
[paraphrased]"The EPA can regulate carbon. Go EPA Go!" The EPA is part of the executive branch, is meant to execute laws on the books, and is subject to change in the way it executes laws based on the administration in power. Personally, I'd rather have laws in place that mandate that carbon be reduced, rather then letting a branch of the executive power decided how and when it should regulate carbon. Remember how effective the EPA was under Bush? ACES did remove the power of the EPA to regulate carbon. That was unfortunate, and should be changed. Guess what? The senate bill restores their power.
“Cap-and-trade makes citizens think everything will be OK if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs, and let These Guys do the rest.” I'm at a loss as to how anyone could possibly claim this. I wish I could make a more coherent argument, but this quote is absolutely asinine and befuddling. Does she have any sources to back up this wild claim?
The real problem with the bill on the table is that our legislative process is incredibly complex, often at the whim of powerful interest groups, and is full of legislators who are, quite simply, idiots (Inhofe anyone?). However, scrapping the current legislation won't change any of that. If Miss Leonard were to make a cartoon taking on this problem, the real problem, I would probably be completely behind her. Instead she sees problems with cap-and-trade, problems that most people see, exaggerates them, then surmises that there are wonderful solutions out there that we just aren't looking at. I have news for her--they have been looked at. Even the authors of these 'distracting' bills want them in place. The problem is, at this moment in time a carbon tax, or heavy carbon fees, just aren't politically possible. Instead, the authors have weakened the carbon cap, and have put a weaker mechanism in place. But while doing that, they have simultaneously:
-Mandated a Renewable energy standard--80% renewable (that's solar, wind, geothermal, hydrological stop, and biofuels) by 2050
-Mandated baseline energy efficiency standards in ALL new residential and commercial buildings
-Created HUGE tax incentives to weatherize homes and businesses.
-Set aside $30 billion to create a modern, efficient, electrical 'super' grid. This number is only set to grow with the subsequent sale of carbon permits (yes, carbon permits are to be sold, just after the initial giveaway).
All these programs--especially the supergrid and the renewable energy standards--would seem to be 'real' solutions to our crisis, yes Miss Leonard misses that these components are in the very bill she dismisses.
Thank you for taking the time to read this very long response.
Sincerely,
N
Despite my position as an advocate for the current climate change/clean energy legislation in the Senate, I, like many on this list-serv, have problems with the legislation as written. One would have to be quite blind not to see that there aren't many inherent weaknesses in this bill that will need to be addressed--whether that be during the senate debate over this bill, or in subsequent legislation to strengthen the US's response to global warming. I've heard much about this cartoon "The Story of Cap and Trade," and considering Annie Leonard's great work in Story of Stuff, I was expecting a thoughtful contribution to the discussion over this legislation, and perhaps some concrete ideas on how to improve the senate's efforts.
To my dismay, Miss Leonard's criticisms on the current bill are either so vague as to be discounted entirely, or completely off base.
Claim 1 (at about 1:05 in the video): She starts the cartoon with perhaps the most asinine argument of the whole video: carbon markets are bad, and are a nefarious scheme of financial demons. Paraphrased: Enron and Goldman Sachs designed cap-and-trade, and are making huge claims to lure your "everyone and their grandmother in" and then are going to burst this new economic bubble and ruin us all.
First off--where are her sources that Goldman Sachs and Enron designed this program? Enron certainly pushed (in the early 90's) for deregulating energy markets, and had a big hand in decoupling a lot of energy commodities from the producers in order to make them a tradeable commodity. Part of that deregulation they abused to the great horror of this nation. Part of that decoupling has produced enormous gains in energy efficiency throughout California. NONE of this has anything to do with the current legislation, nor has Enron, an essentially defunct corporation--had a hand in authoring current climate change legislation. Goldman Sachs is certainly researching how to trade on any new carbon market--just as they did in with the Sulfur Dioxide market in the 90's (which worked quite well)--because that's what banks do. Their research into it doesn't somehow mean that they are a creating a nefarious plot on the backs of climate legislation to screw over grandma. Her entire first argument seems to be to throw around scare words--enron, goldman sachs, scam, subprime mortgages, market--wave her hands suggestively, and voila carbon trading is bad. In fact her whole first argument seems to be just an implied idea that markets in general are bad, despite the hundreds of stable, well policed commodity markets we have in the U.S. and around the world. Or is somehow a market for carbon uniquely bad compared to other markets? The best line in this argument is "...creating a $3 trillion dollar bubble. But when this one bursts, it won't just take down our stock portfolios, it could take down everything." How? And where is the proof that this commodity market is inherently inclined to burst? Her argument in this sector, and throughout the cartoon, is to call cap-and-trade a racket or scam, without truly explaining how it is, in fact, a racket or a scam. But hey, repeat the words enough and they must be true.
Claim 2: (Summarily) Cap-and-Trade didn't work in Europe:
Except that it did. The market in Europe had a rocky start--no one can deny that. Any America's will probably have a rocky start too. Almost any new system will. Still, carbon output in Europe is down between 3 and 5% (depending on the source) or about 100 billion tons a year.
Claim 3 (about minute 4:00): Permit giveaways are bad and (implied) are only benefiting the polluters.
Yes, permit giveaways are bad from a pure standpoint of bringing down carbon production. However one of the reasons many of the permits have been given away has been to keep energy prices stable (a thing that Ms. Leonard herself seems to want). In the Waxman-Markey bill, 80% of the permits given away are for consumer and public protection. The other 20%? Pretty much corporate giveaways that really shouldn't be tolerated. You can argue all you want over whether or not permits should be given away, and how much these giveaways really protect consumers. In fact, I'll probably side with the idea that we shouldn't give them away 90% of the time. However, don't mischaracterize these give-aways as nefarious plots and schemes by goldman sachs and corporate polluters. Except for that othe 20%...criticize that all you want.
Through all this, she criticizes that energy prices went up under cap-and-trade in Europe. Keep that in mind when she explore her solutions.
Where her argument should be--and the truth of the matter is--is that the giveaways that are bad are the result of a very powerful, very well connected oil, coal, and energy industry. Scrapping this bill and starting anew will do nothing to reduce these industries power. Any bill we produce is going to be weakened, watered down by industries that have near complete access to our legislators. If a weakened bill means we shouldn't pass anything then we are never going to pass a bill. It seems like a bitter pill to swallow, and one that Miss Leonard refuses. However that refusal will mean we will never have climate change legislation. A better tactic is to pass the strongest possible bill, and as soon as that is passed start working towards strengthening it with new legislation, new amendments.
Claim 4 (min 4:45). We should sell those permits and put the money to work to stop climate change.
I don't have an argument against the idea of selling the permits. What I have a problem with is her implication that giving away permits raised energy prices (bad) and lined the pockets of carbon-traders (bad). Instead we should sell the permits...which will somehow not raise energy prices like the giveaways did, and won't raise a profit for the carbon traders. Selling permits will give a greater jumpstart to carbon reduction, but won't solve any of investment problems she's announced. And her other legislative proposals (such as cap and dividend), while quite good ideas, are still subject to that powerful oil, coal, and energy lobby from above. They would be weakened just like our cap-and-trade legislation. The problem isn't inherent in cap-and-trade, as she seems to imply, but in our political system.
Claim 5 (min 6:45ish): Offsets are bad.
Annie Leonard isn't the only one I know to use this line of argument. She takes anecdotal evidence of abuse (and there will be abuse--just like there is abuse in any system, no matter how perfect), and conflates these anecdotes with offsets in general, and then claims offsets as a whole are bad. I know of a man whose car was hit by a train. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt, was thrown from the car and lived. The rest of the passengers in the car perished. Does this mean seatbelts are bad? Of course not. His story was unique and can't be applied to the whole system. In reality, the idea of offsets, and the system that will be created to utilize them, is extremely complex. There will be abuses, but there will be a lot of gains. A lot of the success or failure of offsets will rely on the stringency of legislation governing offsets (which in Waxman-Markey are suprisingly stringent) and the development and implementation of technology to govern the offsets. Due to satellite imagine, and desktop programs like Google Earth, the ability to monitor offset programs (such as forest preservation in Brazil) has made leaps and bounds in the last few years, and is well suited to effectively monitor most type of offset programs. Abuses will slip through the cracks, and some of those abuses will be quite bad, but that does not make the entire system bad or cap-and-trade meaningless.
Claim 6 (Minute 7:10): Cap-and-trade distracts from 'real solutions.'
What solutions where? To be fair, there are of course many solutions out there. But Ms. Leonard just decries this 'distraction' and then fails to point out any 'real solution' in her final argument. She does mention a cap, but doesn't point out how a cap is more or less effective then CAP-and-trade.
"We are not even close to a global cap on carbon to begin with, and duh, that is the whole point of cap-and trade." Global cap: no. National cap? Yes (albeit one that needs to be stronger). And the whole point of cap and trade isn't to figure out a global cap, its to implement a system that, once the cap is establish, can work towards reaching that goal.
"We don't need to let these guys design the solution. We, us, our governments can make the laws ourselves." Again, how is this different than what has happened? Did not the bills she is criticizing come from the legislative process (nefarious Goldman Sachs implications aside)? How will some other bill (cap and dividend, carbon tax, whatever) come through the legislative process fully strong and ready to fight pollution?
[paraphrased]"The EPA can regulate carbon. Go EPA Go!" The EPA is part of the executive branch, is meant to execute laws on the books, and is subject to change in the way it executes laws based on the administration in power. Personally, I'd rather have laws in place that mandate that carbon be reduced, rather then letting a branch of the executive power decided how and when it should regulate carbon. Remember how effective the EPA was under Bush? ACES did remove the power of the EPA to regulate carbon. That was unfortunate, and should be changed. Guess what? The senate bill restores their power.
“Cap-and-trade makes citizens think everything will be OK if we just drive a little less, change our light bulbs, and let These Guys do the rest.” I'm at a loss as to how anyone could possibly claim this. I wish I could make a more coherent argument, but this quote is absolutely asinine and befuddling. Does she have any sources to back up this wild claim?
The real problem with the bill on the table is that our legislative process is incredibly complex, often at the whim of powerful interest groups, and is full of legislators who are, quite simply, idiots (Inhofe anyone?). However, scrapping the current legislation won't change any of that. If Miss Leonard were to make a cartoon taking on this problem, the real problem, I would probably be completely behind her. Instead she sees problems with cap-and-trade, problems that most people see, exaggerates them, then surmises that there are wonderful solutions out there that we just aren't looking at. I have news for her--they have been looked at. Even the authors of these 'distracting' bills want them in place. The problem is, at this moment in time a carbon tax, or heavy carbon fees, just aren't politically possible. Instead, the authors have weakened the carbon cap, and have put a weaker mechanism in place. But while doing that, they have simultaneously:
-Mandated a Renewable energy standard--80% renewable (that's solar, wind, geothermal, hydrological stop, and biofuels) by 2050
-Mandated baseline energy efficiency standards in ALL new residential and commercial buildings
-Created HUGE tax incentives to weatherize homes and businesses.
-Set aside $30 billion to create a modern, efficient, electrical 'super' grid. This number is only set to grow with the subsequent sale of carbon permits (yes, carbon permits are to be sold, just after the initial giveaway).
All these programs--especially the supergrid and the renewable energy standards--would seem to be 'real' solutions to our crisis, yes Miss Leonard misses that these components are in the very bill she dismisses.
Thank you for taking the time to read this very long response.
Sincerely,
N
Friday, July 10, 2009
This is how we scam you.
You know what's been bothering me for the past few years? Three times now I've been contacted by an African prince, or an African bank executive, with the promise of untold riches.
Thrice I've been bilked out of my entire savings, and the princes have YET to contact me!
Well, I hope those bastards fall for this! I saw it on a Somalian website:
Thrice I've been bilked out of my entire savings, and the princes have YET to contact me!
Well, I hope those bastards fall for this! I saw it on a Somalian website:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Commercial Idea #1
Scene: A guy walking through the cracker aisle at a grocery store. He stops a clerk and asks for CHEEZ-ITS. The clerk hands him CHEESE-NIPS. The customer proceeds to pummel the clerk with his shopping basket. Close-up on the customer's face. As blood splatters across his brow, he yells "NIP THIS!" Cut to the Cheez-Its logo, and the words "Cheese Nips? Go fuck yourself."
I should be an advertising executive.
New Commercial Idea: A guy walking through the cracker aisle at a grocery store. He stops a clerk and asks for CHEEZ-ITS. The clerk hands him CHEESE-NIPS. The customer proceeds to pummel the clerk with his shopping basket. Close-up on the customer's face. As blood splatters across his brow, he yells "NIP THIS!" Cut to the Cheez-Its logo, and the words "Cheese Nips? Go fuck yourself."
Anyone want to film this with me?
Anyone want to film this with me?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Interesting
Shell Oil is in a legal battle right now for murder. I've been following the case on and off--there is a lot of rhetoric on each side that is suspect at times--but it's been a fairly interesting case. And one whose ending we can probably all predict. Anyway, here's a quick mini-documentary about the circumstances of the murder. If you have 8 minutes, please check it out.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Numbers
Headline today:
UN Says Sri Lankan Death Toll Too High [Note: Headline has since changed.]
Apparently the UN has an acceptable number of civilian deaths in a safety zone?
UN Says Sri Lankan Death Toll Too High [Note: Headline has since changed.]
Apparently the UN has an acceptable number of civilian deaths in a safety zone?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
My Baby
After 8 months, my city-wide composting recommendation has finally moved from subcommittee to executive committee. If the response from the subcommittee is any indication, I think it will be readily accepted by the full committee, followed by implementation of full policy.
It may be boring for most, but it's awesome to me. Here's the fruit that 8-months, and reams of research will produce:
WMR Rec WM-11 Final
It may be boring for most, but it's awesome to me. Here's the fruit that 8-months, and reams of research will produce:
WMR Rec WM-11 Final
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
*sigh*
I get exaggerating to make a story better. I do it, my friends do it, my coworkers do it...safe to say probably every does it. And I get people who embellish statistics to support their cause in an impromptu, oral argument. However, show a little respect and at least embellish within the realm of plausibility. And if you really have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever, don't talk. One more thing--if your statistics can be so easily checked as to open the daily newspaper--any daily newspaper--and see what you are saying is bullshit, then please choose another tactic.
Quotes from my boss today:
"My husband's title one school [i.e. very poor] has just atrocious drug use. Fourth graders shoot up heroin daily!"
My problems with this. One, I think if there was a school in an affluent city with 4th graders shooting up heroin daily, there would probably be at least a news report. Two, if this is true, and the teachers all know it, why isn't it being reported? Three, the freshman in this office is believing this. And four, current street price of heroin is just under $90 a gram. What 4th grader from a title one school, in piss-poor neighborhood, can afford heroin daily? Jesus, if you know nothing about drugs, don't say anything! And if you are going to make something up, at least use something plausible, like methamphetamine or crack cocaine. Really, does anyone use heroin anymore? I thought that shit died out with Kurt Cobain.
"There are knifings there daily! Daily!"
I'll suspend my disbelief that many elementary school children shiv each other daily for now. Let's look at the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual police and hospital reports for knifings, shall we?
Interesting...no reports from this or any other elementary school. There was one report from one high school in the past year. So either she's saying that all these knifings go unreported by the teachers (including her husband), or she's making this up. Again, the office workers seem to eat it up. I really hate this last part. I could deal with the...exaggerations...by simply ignoring her. But by her painting this picture that doesn't exist, and having younger students believe her, she is planting the seeds of fear of a general populace. There is already a problem with students here refusing to see any part of Charleston besides downtown Charleston and the beach. Our office is the office that's supposed to be tearing down those barriers, yet she's unintentionally building them among the very workers who are supposed to be above that.
"I grew up in a tiny town."
She lived in the suburbs of New York. Her dad worked in the city. She recently stated her parents were selling their old house for a million+ [although with her, this could be complete bullshit.] Her neighbors were Whoopi Gullberg, Kevin Bacon, and Jane Curtain. I hate people who try to build a false past to suit their needs. She only mentions her rural past if she's either talking about how she had to work hard to get ahead, explaining why she lacks a knowledge in a subject ("I never knew how to do this when I was growing up! I had to figure it out on my own! You don't learn much like this growing up in a small town!"), or to build a false sense of experience.
My entire county had a population less than 10,000, the closest actual city was 70 miles away, with only rural highways connecting us. Even the closest large town was 30 miles away. And yet I've never used that background to explain away a deficiency of mine. In fact, I don't consider it a deficiency, but a benefit to my upbringing. At the very least it allows me to differentiate myself from most people in this country. Growing up in a truly small town (and one of the poorest counties in the state) never inhibited my intellectual or personal growth. Of course I had parents that read to me, encouraged education, supported me, and I'm not trying to discount that. All I'm saying is that all things being equal (her parents also supported her), using your geographic past to dismiss shortcomings is cheap, especially with that past is a false one.
Quotes from my boss today:
"My husband's title one school [i.e. very poor] has just atrocious drug use. Fourth graders shoot up heroin daily!"
My problems with this. One, I think if there was a school in an affluent city with 4th graders shooting up heroin daily, there would probably be at least a news report. Two, if this is true, and the teachers all know it, why isn't it being reported? Three, the freshman in this office is believing this. And four, current street price of heroin is just under $90 a gram. What 4th grader from a title one school, in piss-poor neighborhood, can afford heroin daily? Jesus, if you know nothing about drugs, don't say anything! And if you are going to make something up, at least use something plausible, like methamphetamine or crack cocaine. Really, does anyone use heroin anymore? I thought that shit died out with Kurt Cobain.
"There are knifings there daily! Daily!"
I'll suspend my disbelief that many elementary school children shiv each other daily for now. Let's look at the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual police and hospital reports for knifings, shall we?
Interesting...no reports from this or any other elementary school. There was one report from one high school in the past year. So either she's saying that all these knifings go unreported by the teachers (including her husband), or she's making this up. Again, the office workers seem to eat it up. I really hate this last part. I could deal with the...exaggerations...by simply ignoring her. But by her painting this picture that doesn't exist, and having younger students believe her, she is planting the seeds of fear of a general populace. There is already a problem with students here refusing to see any part of Charleston besides downtown Charleston and the beach. Our office is the office that's supposed to be tearing down those barriers, yet she's unintentionally building them among the very workers who are supposed to be above that.
"I grew up in a tiny town."
She lived in the suburbs of New York. Her dad worked in the city. She recently stated her parents were selling their old house for a million+ [although with her, this could be complete bullshit.] Her neighbors were Whoopi Gullberg, Kevin Bacon, and Jane Curtain. I hate people who try to build a false past to suit their needs. She only mentions her rural past if she's either talking about how she had to work hard to get ahead, explaining why she lacks a knowledge in a subject ("I never knew how to do this when I was growing up! I had to figure it out on my own! You don't learn much like this growing up in a small town!"), or to build a false sense of experience.
My entire county had a population less than 10,000, the closest actual city was 70 miles away, with only rural highways connecting us. Even the closest large town was 30 miles away. And yet I've never used that background to explain away a deficiency of mine. In fact, I don't consider it a deficiency, but a benefit to my upbringing. At the very least it allows me to differentiate myself from most people in this country. Growing up in a truly small town (and one of the poorest counties in the state) never inhibited my intellectual or personal growth. Of course I had parents that read to me, encouraged education, supported me, and I'm not trying to discount that. All I'm saying is that all things being equal (her parents also supported her), using your geographic past to dismiss shortcomings is cheap, especially with that past is a false one.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Stimulating the Economy. Cajun Style.
Due to some major errors by the accounting department--such as paying people who don't exist large salaries out of my office's budget--my office has suddenly receive $12,000. Well not received...because that would imply we didn't have it to begin with. We...reclaimed $12,000. Here's the catch though. After an entire year of cutting costs like crazy, we now have less than 2 months to spend said $12,000 or--get this--our budget will be cut next year because we obviously don't need the money.
So we are stocking up on office supplies for the next 10 years. And by office supplies, I don't just mean paper and highlighters. I've ordered 3 laptops, a digital projector and screen, a scanner, and am looking for couches, conference tables, and a slew of other furniture.
That brings me up to $7,000. What to do with the next $5,000?
Today I proposed we buy:
-Office snuggies, embroidered with our logo.
-Shamwows for gift baskets to potential donors.
-Any amount of the following: OxiClean, Kaboom, Mighty Putty, the Awesome Auger, the Samurai Shark sharpener, Orange Glo, pedeggs, mighty mend-it, bedazzler, CLR, and Jupiter Jacks.
She rejected my proposal.
So we are stocking up on office supplies for the next 10 years. And by office supplies, I don't just mean paper and highlighters. I've ordered 3 laptops, a digital projector and screen, a scanner, and am looking for couches, conference tables, and a slew of other furniture.
That brings me up to $7,000. What to do with the next $5,000?
Today I proposed we buy:
-Office snuggies, embroidered with our logo.
-Shamwows for gift baskets to potential donors.
-Any amount of the following: OxiClean, Kaboom, Mighty Putty, the Awesome Auger, the Samurai Shark sharpener, Orange Glo, pedeggs, mighty mend-it, bedazzler, CLR, and Jupiter Jacks.
She rejected my proposal.
Great Minds think alike
If one were to ask me "Neil, name the parameters to make the perfect comedy." I would naturally reply "Take the director of old school, an alum or two from the daily show or the office, Las Vegas, and comedian Zack Galifinakis. Shake well."
If you were then to press me for some details of the movie to make it absolutely perfect, I would probably say "You need livestock, a baby getting whacked in the head by a police car, and Mike Tyson dancing to a Phil Collins tune."
It's like somebody read my soul:
If you were then to press me for some details of the movie to make it absolutely perfect, I would probably say "You need livestock, a baby getting whacked in the head by a police car, and Mike Tyson dancing to a Phil Collins tune."
It's like somebody read my soul:
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Fascinating
I've never really followed Maine's state politics closely. Surprised, right? Yeah, for some reason some state that's not an economic, cultural, military, or political powerhouse has escaped my attention. However, as a state that is probably next in line to try to legalize gay marriage, it has become rather interesting as of late.
Most current news...Maine's Governor, who has up until recently been opposed to the legalization of gay marriage (I think), is reviewing every email, letter, and phone call sent to his office about gay marriage. Furthermore, he is contacting random opposition voices.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10699/an-unexpected-conversation-with-the-governor
If this is true...wow. While I know this process would be infeasible as an everyday policy apparatus, kudos to Baldacci for taking the time to understand his fellow citizen's ideas on the subject, and not just his own. It's easy to talk to someone who agrees with you on the subject. It takes guts to call up random dissenters and chew the fat on a rather touchy subject.
Most current news...Maine's Governor, who has up until recently been opposed to the legalization of gay marriage (I think), is reviewing every email, letter, and phone call sent to his office about gay marriage. Furthermore, he is contacting random opposition voices.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10699/an-unexpected-conversation-with-the-governor
If this is true...wow. While I know this process would be infeasible as an everyday policy apparatus, kudos to Baldacci for taking the time to understand his fellow citizen's ideas on the subject, and not just his own. It's easy to talk to someone who agrees with you on the subject. It takes guts to call up random dissenters and chew the fat on a rather touchy subject.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Things I Hate.
1. The word 'basically.' You can use it one of two ways:
The first means you believe the person(s) you are addressing is such an idiot that the knowledge you are about to share is much too complicated for his or her infinitesimal brain and therefore you are watering it down to a level suitable to your ape-like intellect:
'Basically, you mentally deficient chipmunk, Citizen Kane is about a newspaper man and his sled.' No, its simultaneously a tribute and criticism to the life of William Randolph Hearst; and it's a testimony to the way money and power can slowly degrade a man's soul, until that person would be unrecognizable to the young child he once was. See? That wasn't that hard. And not one use of the word 'basically.'
The second way, is it's used in the vastly more irritating manner of saying "basically" and then detailing everything you needed to say anyway. 'Basically, a wormhole is as a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time, which can be viewed as a 2D surface that, when 'folded' over..." [editor's note: That's from wikipedia. Like I know what the fuck a wormhole is, other than that cool open-y thing on Deep Space Nine.] That's not a basic description, is it?
2. The word 'pickle.' Try to say it without sounding like a pedophile.
3.Gary Busey. Nick Nolte.
4. Celebrity filled tribute concerts. Instead of using a small city's worth of electricity in your concert meant to 'save the rainforest,' whatevertf that means, how 'bout you go out and plant a tree? Or use the MILLIONS of dollars it took to put on that concert, and buy a tract of rainforest that you can actually protect. You're raising awareness? Raise this [editor's note: I just grabbed my crotch.]
5. The phrase "Apples to Oranges," meaning 'incomparable." Since when has the english language become so confined that you can't compare apples to oranges?
Apples are a red, green, or yellow fruit with a thin, crisp skin, and an inside, or 'meat,' that is sweet, slightly grainy, and dry in comparison to oranges. Also they can be made into pies. Oranges, my friends, are an orange [or reddish yellow, if you are going to make an argument against tautology] colored citrus fruit with a very thick skin and a meat that is watery, cellular, and a bit tart. If you try to make these into pies, you'll get a disgusting slop. However if you squeeze a peeled orange over a bottle, you get a delicious juice. Squeeze an apple over said bottle, you get strained fingers.
Apples and Oranges = Compared.
6. People who defend Michael Bay with "he knows how to shoot an action scene." Yeah? So do these guys:
7. Michael Bay. God help me if you get your grubby little mitts on a Thundercats or Zelda script. You stay the fuck away from Link, do you hear me??
8. People who are famous for no discernable reason. No I'm not talking about the Paris Hiltons of the world. She has a reason--she's a trampy ho bag at whose grotesqueness we can stare for hours. Man that was a poorly constructed sentence. Anyway, no I'm talking about people whose names I don't even recognize until they are hosting SNL, or in the news for some stupid comment they made that has made everyone's panties bunch up. I'm talking to you, Perez Hilton and Zac Efron.
9. People who casually use the phrase "honestly" or "to be honest with you." You either are implying you are normally a pathological liar, e.g. this guy:
Or you sound like a salesman.
"Usually I'm a sack of shit, Neil, but today I wanted to give you a really special deal. The Firestone Tires credit card will save you $50 on this purchase, and--now remember most things that come out of my mouth are libelous filth, but not today--it's really about your financial security."
10. Improper use of quotation marks. At a store I once worked at, there was a sign that said:
"Fresh" Limes.
The first means you believe the person(s) you are addressing is such an idiot that the knowledge you are about to share is much too complicated for his or her infinitesimal brain and therefore you are watering it down to a level suitable to your ape-like intellect:
'Basically, you mentally deficient chipmunk, Citizen Kane is about a newspaper man and his sled.' No, its simultaneously a tribute and criticism to the life of William Randolph Hearst; and it's a testimony to the way money and power can slowly degrade a man's soul, until that person would be unrecognizable to the young child he once was. See? That wasn't that hard. And not one use of the word 'basically.'
The second way, is it's used in the vastly more irritating manner of saying "basically" and then detailing everything you needed to say anyway. 'Basically, a wormhole is as a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time, which can be viewed as a 2D surface that, when 'folded' over..." [editor's note: That's from wikipedia. Like I know what the fuck a wormhole is, other than that cool open-y thing on Deep Space Nine.] That's not a basic description, is it?
2. The word 'pickle.' Try to say it without sounding like a pedophile.
3.
4. Celebrity filled tribute concerts. Instead of using a small city's worth of electricity in your concert meant to 'save the rainforest,' whatevertf that means, how 'bout you go out and plant a tree? Or use the MILLIONS of dollars it took to put on that concert, and buy a tract of rainforest that you can actually protect. You're raising awareness? Raise this [editor's note: I just grabbed my crotch.]
5. The phrase "Apples to Oranges," meaning 'incomparable." Since when has the english language become so confined that you can't compare apples to oranges?
Apples are a red, green, or yellow fruit with a thin, crisp skin, and an inside, or 'meat,' that is sweet, slightly grainy, and dry in comparison to oranges. Also they can be made into pies. Oranges, my friends, are an orange [or reddish yellow, if you are going to make an argument against tautology] colored citrus fruit with a very thick skin and a meat that is watery, cellular, and a bit tart. If you try to make these into pies, you'll get a disgusting slop. However if you squeeze a peeled orange over a bottle, you get a delicious juice. Squeeze an apple over said bottle, you get strained fingers.
Apples and Oranges = Compared.
6. People who defend Michael Bay with "he knows how to shoot an action scene." Yeah? So do these guys:
7. Michael Bay. God help me if you get your grubby little mitts on a Thundercats or Zelda script. You stay the fuck away from Link, do you hear me??
8. People who are famous for no discernable reason. No I'm not talking about the Paris Hiltons of the world. She has a reason--she's a trampy ho bag at whose grotesqueness we can stare for hours. Man that was a poorly constructed sentence. Anyway, no I'm talking about people whose names I don't even recognize until they are hosting SNL, or in the news for some stupid comment they made that has made everyone's panties bunch up. I'm talking to you, Perez Hilton and Zac Efron.
9. People who casually use the phrase "honestly" or "to be honest with you." You either are implying you are normally a pathological liar, e.g. this guy:
Or you sound like a salesman.
"Usually I'm a sack of shit, Neil, but today I wanted to give you a really special deal. The Firestone Tires credit card will save you $50 on this purchase, and--now remember most things that come out of my mouth are libelous filth, but not today--it's really about your financial security."
10. Improper use of quotation marks. At a store I once worked at, there was a sign that said:
"Fresh" Limes.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Stories Stories Stories!
Oh man it's been an exciting week!
Ok, so there's been a big problem with my roommate--cock nuggets--turning on the AC no matter what temperature it was outside. So if it's 55 degrees, he still turns on the AC at 65. This alone is ridiculous, but think about how freaking cold 65 degrees is! Also, keep in mind he hasn't paid electricity in 2 months, so he doesn't give a shit about how much that temperature is going to cost in bills.
So yeah, its been me against him, mano e mano. He turns on the AC at night, I wait 3 minutes and turn it off. He turns it down, I turn it back up. You get the idea. I come home last night, and there is a sign posted above the thermostat. It was written by my other roommate, cookie tits. The note:
"WHOEVER TURNED ON THE HEAT IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER [editor's note: yes summer starts in May here] TO 82 DEGREES, DO IT AGAIN AND YOU NO LONGER CAN STAY HERE! ONLY NEIL IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH THE THERMOSTAT FROM NOW ON! IF YOU PAID ELECTRICITY, PERHAPS YOU COULD TOUCH IT. BUT SINCE YOU DON'T, GO TO HELL."
An hour later, there is a new note from cock nuggets:
"Maybe if it wasn't 90 degrees in my room I would pay rent and bills!"
Well...that's not logical. Of course I had to chime in.
"Wait...that's an option? If we aren't comfortable we don't have to pay? By that logic shouldn't you have paid as soon as you turned it down to 65 degrees? What about in February and March when you were comfortable? Why didn't you pay then? Is there anything else we can do to make you more comfortable, besides the free rent, free bills, and the food you steal?"
Cookie tits came home and of course saw what cock nuggets had wrote and, long story short, he was gone when I came home today.
But the story doesn't end there.
Sine it's hard to move everything you have in a few hours, Cookie Tits agreed that Cock Nuggets could keep his big stuff here until a truck could come to grab it. Well, wouldn't you know it a truck pulls up just a few minutes ago. However cock nuggets wasn't in it. Instead a guy comes to the door and says that cock nuggets owes him a lot of money and...while this may be weird...could I grab some of his stuff as repayment?
Well this was exactly how Michael has been (unknowingly) paying me back for the food of mine he steals. So who was I to stop this, I assume, upstanding gentlemen from taking his just payments? Why, I'll even help him look for the valuable stuff?
Turns out he keeps his stash of pot under his mattress. Who knew? Also who knew that his entire stash would be more than enough as a repayment for the money he owed to this guy?
I feel I made the world a better place today.
Ok, so there's been a big problem with my roommate--cock nuggets--turning on the AC no matter what temperature it was outside. So if it's 55 degrees, he still turns on the AC at 65. This alone is ridiculous, but think about how freaking cold 65 degrees is! Also, keep in mind he hasn't paid electricity in 2 months, so he doesn't give a shit about how much that temperature is going to cost in bills.
So yeah, its been me against him, mano e mano. He turns on the AC at night, I wait 3 minutes and turn it off. He turns it down, I turn it back up. You get the idea. I come home last night, and there is a sign posted above the thermostat. It was written by my other roommate, cookie tits. The note:
"WHOEVER TURNED ON THE HEAT IN THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER [editor's note: yes summer starts in May here] TO 82 DEGREES, DO IT AGAIN AND YOU NO LONGER CAN STAY HERE! ONLY NEIL IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH THE THERMOSTAT FROM NOW ON! IF YOU PAID ELECTRICITY, PERHAPS YOU COULD TOUCH IT. BUT SINCE YOU DON'T, GO TO HELL."
An hour later, there is a new note from cock nuggets:
"Maybe if it wasn't 90 degrees in my room I would pay rent and bills!"
Well...that's not logical. Of course I had to chime in.
"Wait...that's an option? If we aren't comfortable we don't have to pay? By that logic shouldn't you have paid as soon as you turned it down to 65 degrees? What about in February and March when you were comfortable? Why didn't you pay then? Is there anything else we can do to make you more comfortable, besides the free rent, free bills, and the food you steal?"
Cookie tits came home and of course saw what cock nuggets had wrote and, long story short, he was gone when I came home today.
But the story doesn't end there.
Sine it's hard to move everything you have in a few hours, Cookie Tits agreed that Cock Nuggets could keep his big stuff here until a truck could come to grab it. Well, wouldn't you know it a truck pulls up just a few minutes ago. However cock nuggets wasn't in it. Instead a guy comes to the door and says that cock nuggets owes him a lot of money and...while this may be weird...could I grab some of his stuff as repayment?
Well this was exactly how Michael has been (unknowingly) paying me back for the food of mine he steals. So who was I to stop this, I assume, upstanding gentlemen from taking his just payments? Why, I'll even help him look for the valuable stuff?
Turns out he keeps his stash of pot under his mattress. Who knew? Also who knew that his entire stash would be more than enough as a repayment for the money he owed to this guy?
I feel I made the world a better place today.
Michigan's woes.
A few years before America's entry into WWII, and in the midst of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt started ramping up war materials production in order to supply Britain, Australia, and others as outlined by the Lend-Lease Act. To do this, he essentially told the big automakers that they were going to make some damn planes, tanks, and bombs, and he didn't want to hear any of their guff. FDR was big on using both his literal and metaphorical backside of his hand on corporations.
Fast forward a few decades, and America sees themselves in the midst of what I'm going to term for now a Great Recession. And wouldn't you know it, our President is using his backhand on GM and Chrysler like they were a bunch of coke whores failing to give us a cut of their BJ money. Except Obama's being way more of a pansy, and simply firing a CEO here, and forcing dumbass deals with Italian automakers. (Seriously...the Italians are saving us? Fuck me...).
Then we have this whole Boil Our Oceans problem going on. (Don't you think that would get more attention than 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change?') The biggest contributor to this problem is the production of energy through fossil fuels. Sure we have the Saudi Arabia of wind in the US. And sure, with offshore windfarms most coastal (including Great Lake) states could produce 100% - 200% of their energy by wind. But we have this problem. No one really has the ability to mass produce windmills on such a scale to really make this viable yet. Also no one has the money to create the production foundation necessary to make these windmills.
I mean, where are you going to find a huge pool of labor highly trained in steelworking, machine tooling, and advanced manufacturing technology needed to make windmills on a huge scale? Why, one would need a whole city trained to do that. And a city that doesn't have such competing interests that the labor pool would be bled towards other pursuits. And you would really hundreds of factories with assembly lines designed to be flexible enough to produce new designs on an almost constant basis. Where could someone possibly find that?
...
So instead of firing CEO's, forcing poorly formed mergers, and handing out millions and millions in funds to keep the auto industry alive, even when its clear right now that no one is really interested in purchasing cars, why don't we do this:
Make the cash to GM and Chrysler available not as a bailout but as an infrastructure loan. Tell them to get this loan they are going to have to be prepared to, at least temporarily, change their product. Then with allll that money we've set aside for green training, and towards creating wind markets, start change Detroit from the Gotham its become?
Yes, there is a somewhat limited market for windmills (although not THAT limited. These things have a finite life, and markets like China, Russia, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, etc, are RIPE for wind production.), but the change doesn't have to be permanent, and can be phased back towards car production as the market dictates. Plane, tank, and bomb production wasn't a permanent features after WWII (depending on your outlook of the Military-Industrial complex), and the transition for the car manufactures back to car production was a relatively painless one.
I know this isn't a novel idea, and Michigan's Governon Granholm (or whatever her name is. I'm too lazy for wikipedia), has supported it in numerous speeches. But I really only see words right now ('We should do this!') and no federal official--Michigan can't do this on their own--stepping up to the plate.
Or maybe I'm just ignorant on plans in place to do this. If not, how do we pressure the government to move towards this? Or is this just a shitty idea?
Fast forward a few decades, and America sees themselves in the midst of what I'm going to term for now a Great Recession. And wouldn't you know it, our President is using his backhand on GM and Chrysler like they were a bunch of coke whores failing to give us a cut of their BJ money. Except Obama's being way more of a pansy, and simply firing a CEO here, and forcing dumbass deals with Italian automakers. (Seriously...the Italians are saving us? Fuck me...).
Then we have this whole Boil Our Oceans problem going on. (Don't you think that would get more attention than 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change?') The biggest contributor to this problem is the production of energy through fossil fuels. Sure we have the Saudi Arabia of wind in the US. And sure, with offshore windfarms most coastal (including Great Lake) states could produce 100% - 200% of their energy by wind. But we have this problem. No one really has the ability to mass produce windmills on such a scale to really make this viable yet. Also no one has the money to create the production foundation necessary to make these windmills.
I mean, where are you going to find a huge pool of labor highly trained in steelworking, machine tooling, and advanced manufacturing technology needed to make windmills on a huge scale? Why, one would need a whole city trained to do that. And a city that doesn't have such competing interests that the labor pool would be bled towards other pursuits. And you would really hundreds of factories with assembly lines designed to be flexible enough to produce new designs on an almost constant basis. Where could someone possibly find that?
...
So instead of firing CEO's, forcing poorly formed mergers, and handing out millions and millions in funds to keep the auto industry alive, even when its clear right now that no one is really interested in purchasing cars, why don't we do this:
Make the cash to GM and Chrysler available not as a bailout but as an infrastructure loan. Tell them to get this loan they are going to have to be prepared to, at least temporarily, change their product. Then with allll that money we've set aside for green training, and towards creating wind markets, start change Detroit from the Gotham its become?
Yes, there is a somewhat limited market for windmills (although not THAT limited. These things have a finite life, and markets like China, Russia, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, etc, are RIPE for wind production.), but the change doesn't have to be permanent, and can be phased back towards car production as the market dictates. Plane, tank, and bomb production wasn't a permanent features after WWII (depending on your outlook of the Military-Industrial complex), and the transition for the car manufactures back to car production was a relatively painless one.
I know this isn't a novel idea, and Michigan's Governon Granholm (or whatever her name is. I'm too lazy for wikipedia), has supported it in numerous speeches. But I really only see words right now ('We should do this!') and no federal official--Michigan can't do this on their own--stepping up to the plate.
Or maybe I'm just ignorant on plans in place to do this. If not, how do we pressure the government to move towards this? Or is this just a shitty idea?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
This is the funniest picture I've ever seen on an internet ad.
Oh man! After undertaking the enormous responsibility of bringing a life into this world, I never thought I may have to plan for the future! Fortunately this picture of an unattended child in the middle of a cemetery really brought home the idea that perhaps life insurance--one of the most basic of all insurance that many have from the time they are a teenager--would be a good idea. Thank you random bawling child in the middle of a cemetery. BTW, where the fuck are your legal guardians now that your parents have kicked the bucket? Or did they not plan that far ahead? Maybe they only got their parenting advice from internet ads, and thought life insurance was all that's necessary. Why are you crying anyway? You have $500,000 coming to you. Now stfu with the crying. Be a man.Also, wear a suit to a funeral.
Do you think the people who took this picture had to punch the kid to get those lifelike tears?
I can only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
