Holy underwear, he's won again.
(I really don't need to elaborate, do I?)
And with that note, it's time to take note of the ridiculous amount of money being thrown around in election campaigns.
Let's see: In Iowa alone, 12.5 million spent just on TV ads, and that's just from the candidates. If one includes the PACs, an additional 14 million.
How effective was that money? Well, the biggest spender by far, Rick Perry, spent 2.86 million to finish a distant fifth. Or, to put it in gasoline terms, his political engine gets 35 gallons per mile. Rick Santorum, by contrast, barely spent anything and tied Romney. In terms of money spent, this is the equivalent of the Toledo Mudhens beating the New York Yankees. Maybe Rick Perry should have had a better stand on the issues and spent less money.
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Since its so blazingly obvious, and has been for a while, that TV ads don't buy victory, why the hell do politicians think they can buy their way in? The short answer is that, every once in a long while, a rich and unprincipled fuck really can buy an election.
We can't outlaw political TV ads, much as we would like to. That would violate free speech. But if professional sports teams have to live with a spending cap, why the hell can't our politicians and PACs?
Nah, that would make too much sense!
What really bothers me about this, is that the idiots wasting so much money on TV ads that ultimately don't matter more than what they do and say are the same morons who are going to get into budgetary battles. To put it in perspective, 5.3 billion was spent on the presidential campaign alone between Obama and McCain, including PACs. McCain, it turns out, actually outspent Obama by just a little bit. (Yeah, how'd that work out?) Republican PACs were outspent by Democratic PACs by a little bit. The annual budget for NASA is 17.8 billion. In other words, just for presidential politics alone, the cost is nearly one third of what it takes to launch things past the troposphere on a regular basis. It used to cost 450 million to launch a space shuttle. President Obama spent roughly 850 million on his election. In other words, just trying to get elected to the White House now costs about the same as launching two space shuttle missions.
Sheesh!
And these are the same people who will turn right around and argue on the House and Senate floors that we have better things to do with our money than launch things at Mars and Jupiter. I agree! But we wouldn't have to even have the discussion if the Space Program came out of your goddamned re-election fund, now would it?!
Here's what really puts it in perspective. The amount spent by the Republican Party during the 2010 election cycle was 1.77 trillion dollars. (The democrats spent 1.8 trillion, outspending them, to get their asses kicked. Case in point again.) I reported in a previous blog about how the national 2011 budget deficit was 1.267 trillion. In other words, both the Republican and Democratic parties outspent the national deficit by at least 30%, EACH! And that's during a midterm election!
Here's a thought: Let's enact an election spending cap, then take all that extra cash and solve our national debt and deficit crisis problems at the same time! Hell, let's pay for medical care for everybody too!
Nah, that would make too much sense!
So, if you think that our money would be spent better on other things, NOW is your chance to speak up! Let politicians know the waste will not be tolerated anymore! Or else, when the time comes to argue over whether to slash Social Security and Medicare, or raise taxes on the upper part of 1%, you will have LOST your right to complain!
I've got it! Let's levy taxes on campaign spending! Brilliant! (That would certainly tax the 1% easily, wouldn't it?)
Nah, that would make too much sense!
Eric
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Iowa Caucases, And Reforms
Holy underwear! Mitt Romney has just won the Iowa Caucasians, er, I mean, Caucuses, by eight votes!
I demand a recount! (Hee, hee!)
Bachmann's out.(Apparently, God was just kidding when he told her to run.) Rick Perry is on life support. Newt Gingrich is bitching like the limbless Black Night in Monty Python's "The Holy Grail." It's a beautiful thing.
The two finalists? You have Obamacare, Jr, Mitt "Holy Underwear" Romney, and the only legislator to have homosexual ass-juice named after him.
Oh, for those of you who actually DON'T watch Jon Stewart, let me teach you about the meaning of the word, "Santorum." It began in 1996 when Rick Santorum first won election to the Senate, and garnered ire from gay activists everywhere as he fervently preached that he would, given the chance, repeal all gay marriage. Okay, fine. Then, around the time of 2001, with the "No Child Left Behind" bill pending (yeah, how'd that one work out for us?), Santorum was the guy who added an amendment to require the teaching of Intelligent Design. Maybe I've got my chronology of events wrong, but it was way back then that I became aware that the gay & lesbian community had had enough of this clown, and engaged in the best act of name-calling since the "Pink Lady," Helen Gehegan-Douglas, tagged Richard Nixon as "Tricky Dick."
You see, that gross combination of cum, anal lube and well-churned shit that stains the sheets after two men have enjoyed an intimate night together, officially has a name -- and has for over a decade, now. It's called "santorum," named after you-know-who! And it's his unflinching religious-right-wing nonsense that earned him the title, and forever wrote him into the anals... excuse me, the annals, of history.
So Iowa has given us Mr. Shit, and Mr. Underwear. Put them together and you have... well, you know.
Really, I'm driving towards a serious point with all this silly-talk. Because Iowa has given us one brown-nose, and one brown-ass, and that makes me wonder:
WHY THE FUCK SHOULD IOWA HAVE ALL THE FUN?!
Or New Hampshire for that matter? Why do these tiny little states, have such a big say? Why does Iowa, which ranks 30th in population size, and New Hampshire, with only seven states with fewer people (including Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii), get such a big say-so? By the time the primaries reach states like Wisconsin, all but one or two candidates have dropped out! Until Barack Obama came along, I really never got to vote for my #1 choice as president, and the tracks were littered with the corpses of all those I never got the chance to vote for. Paul Tsongas, Lamarr Alexander, Arlen Specter, Dick Gephardt... the list of candidates denied to me -- and indeed all of us -- goes on and on. It seems so unfair. And that's because it so fucking IS!
So, if we're to concede that these corn-munchers and cape-codders have too much say-so, what can we do to fix it? What can we do to give the rest of us a taste of the trillion-dollar advertising bombardment that makes us sick to our stomachs, and the inability to go to the grocery store without being glad-handed by some no-name we've never heard of?
Well, we could have the primaries be a national affair done all at once. Certainly we have the technology. But this pretty much guarantees that the candidates will spend nearly all their time in California, and maybe a little bit in New York and Texas. No, having states do primaries one at a time at least guarantees that some of us common folks get to meet the candidates themselves, and this makes just as much sense today as it did back in the days before jet-planes and the Internet meant that candidates had to campaign by shoe-leather and soap-box.
So how about moving everything up? Maybe we could have a January Bonanza? A super-string of Super Tuesdays? Again, this fails. Because even with primary elections taking place at least as frequently as football games (and with just as much hype) you still have the front-running states having too much say, and the later-running states having masses of people eager and willing to vote for a candidate who (damn it all!) drops out just before primary day arrives. It solves nothing.
So what are we to do? It seems we have a choice of evils. Let two or three states have too much power, or let two or three OTHER states have too much power. What's a concerned voter to do?
Here's my solution: LOTTERY! Instead of Iowa and New Hampshire getting first crack EVERY SINGLE TIME, why don't we cycle the order of primaries for each state every time there's a presidential election? We put a bunch of numbers in a basket, start it tumbling, turn on the vacuum cleaner, and the order that each state's number rolls out (with each state's number being the order in which it joined the union, for example Wisconsin, the 30th state admitted, would be #30) is the order of state primaries. So, every once in awhile, a state like Michigan, which has always been near-last, might get to be first! And they'll get a taste of the mind-numbing responsibility of being unqualified judges of who gets to lead the nation.
Not perfect, no. But way better than the stupid shit we currently have where Iowa always picks the person who seldom is the candidate, usually isn't qualified, and even less often the president. I say, give it some thought!
Eric
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Christmas Day Scandal!
Well, it's official. Santa's star player, Rudolph, will not be able to guide the sleigh this Christmas. Apparently, Rudy has tested positive for RGH, reindeer growth hormone, and has received a holiday-season suspension.
This is the latest in a series of scandals to have rocked the reindeer pen at the North Pole. From Blitzen's public struggles with alcohol abuse to Prancer's admitted cocaine addiction, it seems like the days when reindeer were all about innocence during Christmas are over. All eight of the females in the original team (and this is an interesting bit of trivia: female reindeer have antlers, and all Santa's reindeer, save Rudolph, are female -- which is part of why you put him in the very front; if you put him anywhere else, there could be a problem!) have come forward with tales of personal or emotional struggles that have made a simple thing like pulling a sleigh through the air at Mach 3 seem overtly complicated. Donner, who came out of the closet as gay three years ago, and still maintaining she's in love with Dancer, who refuses to speak with her, is not bowing to pressure from the American Family Association to recant her statement. Comet, a long-time opponent of global warming, who had her paddock fall through the ice last year, is still maintaining that was due to a fluke warm-water current.
And here we thought nothing would be more annoying to Santa than Cupid being diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 1987.
It's hard to fault Rudolph. He's even older than Brett Favre, and has to find some way to keep going year after year. And with all the young reindeer who have been showing up with the characteristic bright, shiny nose (which is a scandal in and of itself), there seems to be no shortage of potential replacements. Word is that with Rudolph out, Santa has turned to the Russian Caribou, Alexi Akhnigoyovich, to temporarily take point on the sleigh. There should be no language barrier with the new acquisition, as Santa himself, who wears a red suit and makes lists of people who are naughty and nice, is of course as fluent in Russian as any other Marxist-Leninist.
So here's hoping the best for Santa's reindeer. Hopefully, Vixen's gonorrhea won't attract a cruise missile over Afghanistan.
Eric
This is the latest in a series of scandals to have rocked the reindeer pen at the North Pole. From Blitzen's public struggles with alcohol abuse to Prancer's admitted cocaine addiction, it seems like the days when reindeer were all about innocence during Christmas are over. All eight of the females in the original team (and this is an interesting bit of trivia: female reindeer have antlers, and all Santa's reindeer, save Rudolph, are female -- which is part of why you put him in the very front; if you put him anywhere else, there could be a problem!) have come forward with tales of personal or emotional struggles that have made a simple thing like pulling a sleigh through the air at Mach 3 seem overtly complicated. Donner, who came out of the closet as gay three years ago, and still maintaining she's in love with Dancer, who refuses to speak with her, is not bowing to pressure from the American Family Association to recant her statement. Comet, a long-time opponent of global warming, who had her paddock fall through the ice last year, is still maintaining that was due to a fluke warm-water current.
And here we thought nothing would be more annoying to Santa than Cupid being diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 1987.
It's hard to fault Rudolph. He's even older than Brett Favre, and has to find some way to keep going year after year. And with all the young reindeer who have been showing up with the characteristic bright, shiny nose (which is a scandal in and of itself), there seems to be no shortage of potential replacements. Word is that with Rudolph out, Santa has turned to the Russian Caribou, Alexi Akhnigoyovich, to temporarily take point on the sleigh. There should be no language barrier with the new acquisition, as Santa himself, who wears a red suit and makes lists of people who are naughty and nice, is of course as fluent in Russian as any other Marxist-Leninist.
So here's hoping the best for Santa's reindeer. Hopefully, Vixen's gonorrhea won't attract a cruise missile over Afghanistan.
Eric
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Shroud of Turin? Seriously?
Well, it's just been reported in the news that a team of "researchers" (I will not dignify them by calling them scientists) have come forward with the claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. The incredible part isn't that a bunch of religiously motivated people have attempted to twist science into confirming their faith. That nonsense has been going on ever since before Darwin turned the cannon of science against religion 151 years ago. What's incredible is that so many reporters would report it as though it were at all credible!
Now, everyone knows that radiocarbon dating put the shroud's age at between 1260 and 1390 C.E., thus making it a medieval forgery. But these researchers say that the sample of the cloth used to make this measurement was likely taken from a piece that was likely repaired with newer material after a fire burned parts of the shroud.
If the PolitiFact meter were put on that one, it would say, "Pants On Fire!"
Shown above, is the shroud itself. It's not as large as I would have liked, but it will do. That white rectangle in the lower left is where scientists clipped a 2" by 8" section which could be atomized for the Carbon-14 test. It's pretty obvious that this section is contiguous with the rest of the cloth. And if that's not enough, there's a PBS documentary that filmed the section being scissored out, and anyone can see bloody well that it's not a "repaired section."
But just for the sheer hell of it, let's play along. Let's say the shroud breaks with every Jewish tradition in folding the body up in a single piece of cloth (not done) folded the long way (also not done) and leaving a narrow, two-dimensional imprint pattern, as if the ultraviolet rays emitted from Jesus upon resurrection only went in a single parallel, straight up or straight down, rather than in a dispersed, outwardly-radiating pattern (as you might expect) which would have created an unrecognizably darkened smear instead of a photograph. You then have a scriptural problem.
The Book of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7 clearly state that Jesus' burial cloth was in strips, not a single piece, and that a separate burial cloth had been around Jesus' head. So, logically, we have only three choices: 1.) This passage from The Book of John is fake, 2.) The Shroud of Turin is fake, 3.) They are both fake! The only option we do not have is that either of these things support Christianity!
So go on, you stupid reporters, and uncritically pass along this story without one, single guffaw. Oh, how I miss Christopher Hitchens at this moment. Hell, I miss H.L. Mencken!
Meanwhile, most high school graduates in America can't find Italy on a map, much less Turin. Now you tell ME which is the more important story!
Eric
If the PolitiFact meter were put on that one, it would say, "Pants On Fire!"
Shown above, is the shroud itself. It's not as large as I would have liked, but it will do. That white rectangle in the lower left is where scientists clipped a 2" by 8" section which could be atomized for the Carbon-14 test. It's pretty obvious that this section is contiguous with the rest of the cloth. And if that's not enough, there's a PBS documentary that filmed the section being scissored out, and anyone can see bloody well that it's not a "repaired section."
But just for the sheer hell of it, let's play along. Let's say the shroud breaks with every Jewish tradition in folding the body up in a single piece of cloth (not done) folded the long way (also not done) and leaving a narrow, two-dimensional imprint pattern, as if the ultraviolet rays emitted from Jesus upon resurrection only went in a single parallel, straight up or straight down, rather than in a dispersed, outwardly-radiating pattern (as you might expect) which would have created an unrecognizably darkened smear instead of a photograph. You then have a scriptural problem.
The Book of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7 clearly state that Jesus' burial cloth was in strips, not a single piece, and that a separate burial cloth had been around Jesus' head. So, logically, we have only three choices: 1.) This passage from The Book of John is fake, 2.) The Shroud of Turin is fake, 3.) They are both fake! The only option we do not have is that either of these things support Christianity!
So go on, you stupid reporters, and uncritically pass along this story without one, single guffaw. Oh, how I miss Christopher Hitchens at this moment. Hell, I miss H.L. Mencken!
Meanwhile, most high school graduates in America can't find Italy on a map, much less Turin. Now you tell ME which is the more important story!
Eric
Friday, December 16, 2011
Brrring!!! Here's Your Wake-Up Call!
Lots of stuff to talk about, but they all revolve around one, basic theme:
It's time for a wake-up call!
Brrrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding education in America. Iran has captured a billion-dollar spy drone. And why? Was it shot down? Lucky grenade-launcher shot? NO! It was captured because the Iranians, these backwater, third-world, religious hacks with nothing to offer but oil, out-thought us in computer software technology! They hacked US? Yes, THEY HACKED US! And not only did they hack us, they hacked the most cutting-edge piece of expensive-assed technology in our military arsenal! Imagine! On the eve of the era of robotic warfare, Iran, fucking IRAN, mind you, has up-ended us!
This happened because we have been lax in our education standards. Not enough boarding schools in the inner city, poor education quality, cutting of funding at critical junctures, teachers unions having incompetent leaders, and bringing down slash-and-burn Republicans down upon all of us as a direct result. Hell-LO! We'd better start thinking of high school as middle school and college as high school, or we're in big trouble! We'll end up getting more third-world hackers upending us! And when the inevitable day arrives when we have robotic drones defending our freedom, we'll find some Islamic terrorist hacking our own robots and turning them upon our own cities. Or worse, Israel.
Brrrring! This is your wake-up call regarding so-called American supremacy! The United States can no longer sit back on its haunches and assume that we are leaders in world technology. Hell, we're not even leaders in world economy anymore! And unless we want our military weapons built in China, with software designed in India, we'd better get off our asses and quit playing around! That means we're ALL going back to school. Not just me! It doesn't matter how old or young you are. We're all re-taking technology 101. Because right now, we're still believing that desk-top computers are cool. Hell, Bill Gates built his company when everybody else was still ga-ga over digital watches! No, our smart phones and iPads are going to take over, and that means any terrorist hacker will have immediate access to everyone's belt-clip and waistline! Unless we wake up!
Brrrring! No more playing around with science and technology! If we're going to survive, as a nation, as a people, if democracy is going to have even a snowball's chance in hell, then we've got to stop pretending that science isn't science, and learn what's really true. No more creationism being taught to kids in high school and hoping our colleges and universities eventually clean up the mess! No more failure to recognize the brain as defining the being by fooling ourselves into thinking that conception is the place to draw the line regarding new life. No more wishing, hoping, and yes, even praying, that global warming is a hoax. Science, people! Not politics!
And speaking of which... Brrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding the general scientific ignorance surrounding steroids in sports. Oh, yes! There's a connection, here. We're all stunned over the Ryan Braun allegedly positive test for (it's assumed) anabolic steroids. But as I dealt with in a previous post, false positives for drug tests are a real danger in any profession. Especially with sports, because what makes a great athlete great is a naturally high level of testosterone, above and beyond what the normal person has. That means a false positive for testosterone is just one fluke chemical imbalance or incompetent lab tech away. And the best athletes will always be at the greatest risk.
Am I calling Ryan Braun innocent? He's innocent until proven guilty, yes! But what I'm really trying to say is, the same general scientific ignorance that let one of our billion-dollar drones get hacked is quite possibly the same thing that let our million-dollar athlete get jacked! One incompetent fool in the wrong place at the wrong time can cost us big! Having too few science professionals and too many incompetent technicians virtually guarantees it! And if having terrorists gain control of our military doesn't scare the piss out of you, then maybe losing our star sports hero for 1/3rd of an entire baseball season will.
Brrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding how silly it is to put sports above the stuff that really matters!
Enough with the scientific ignorance already!
Finally, let's all say a non-prayer for a hero of fighting scientific ignorance, who came forward to shake up our culture at exactly the right time. Christopher Hitchens, the landmark journalist and unabashed atheist, just passed away at the age of 62. Let's face it, 62 is young, these days. If you haven't read Hitch-22, please do so. He gave us all a wake-up call.
Eric
It's time for a wake-up call!
Brrrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding education in America. Iran has captured a billion-dollar spy drone. And why? Was it shot down? Lucky grenade-launcher shot? NO! It was captured because the Iranians, these backwater, third-world, religious hacks with nothing to offer but oil, out-thought us in computer software technology! They hacked US? Yes, THEY HACKED US! And not only did they hack us, they hacked the most cutting-edge piece of expensive-assed technology in our military arsenal! Imagine! On the eve of the era of robotic warfare, Iran, fucking IRAN, mind you, has up-ended us!
This happened because we have been lax in our education standards. Not enough boarding schools in the inner city, poor education quality, cutting of funding at critical junctures, teachers unions having incompetent leaders, and bringing down slash-and-burn Republicans down upon all of us as a direct result. Hell-LO! We'd better start thinking of high school as middle school and college as high school, or we're in big trouble! We'll end up getting more third-world hackers upending us! And when the inevitable day arrives when we have robotic drones defending our freedom, we'll find some Islamic terrorist hacking our own robots and turning them upon our own cities. Or worse, Israel.
Brrrring! This is your wake-up call regarding so-called American supremacy! The United States can no longer sit back on its haunches and assume that we are leaders in world technology. Hell, we're not even leaders in world economy anymore! And unless we want our military weapons built in China, with software designed in India, we'd better get off our asses and quit playing around! That means we're ALL going back to school. Not just me! It doesn't matter how old or young you are. We're all re-taking technology 101. Because right now, we're still believing that desk-top computers are cool. Hell, Bill Gates built his company when everybody else was still ga-ga over digital watches! No, our smart phones and iPads are going to take over, and that means any terrorist hacker will have immediate access to everyone's belt-clip and waistline! Unless we wake up!
Brrrring! No more playing around with science and technology! If we're going to survive, as a nation, as a people, if democracy is going to have even a snowball's chance in hell, then we've got to stop pretending that science isn't science, and learn what's really true. No more creationism being taught to kids in high school and hoping our colleges and universities eventually clean up the mess! No more failure to recognize the brain as defining the being by fooling ourselves into thinking that conception is the place to draw the line regarding new life. No more wishing, hoping, and yes, even praying, that global warming is a hoax. Science, people! Not politics!
And speaking of which... Brrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding the general scientific ignorance surrounding steroids in sports. Oh, yes! There's a connection, here. We're all stunned over the Ryan Braun allegedly positive test for (it's assumed) anabolic steroids. But as I dealt with in a previous post, false positives for drug tests are a real danger in any profession. Especially with sports, because what makes a great athlete great is a naturally high level of testosterone, above and beyond what the normal person has. That means a false positive for testosterone is just one fluke chemical imbalance or incompetent lab tech away. And the best athletes will always be at the greatest risk.
Am I calling Ryan Braun innocent? He's innocent until proven guilty, yes! But what I'm really trying to say is, the same general scientific ignorance that let one of our billion-dollar drones get hacked is quite possibly the same thing that let our million-dollar athlete get jacked! One incompetent fool in the wrong place at the wrong time can cost us big! Having too few science professionals and too many incompetent technicians virtually guarantees it! And if having terrorists gain control of our military doesn't scare the piss out of you, then maybe losing our star sports hero for 1/3rd of an entire baseball season will.
Brrrring! Here's your wake-up call regarding how silly it is to put sports above the stuff that really matters!
Enough with the scientific ignorance already!
Finally, let's all say a non-prayer for a hero of fighting scientific ignorance, who came forward to shake up our culture at exactly the right time. Christopher Hitchens, the landmark journalist and unabashed atheist, just passed away at the age of 62. Let's face it, 62 is young, these days. If you haven't read Hitch-22, please do so. He gave us all a wake-up call.
Eric
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Christmas Card Conundrum
It's that time of year again. (I don't really need to describe it, do I?) And with all the shopping for presents and hubbub, there's the inevitable barrage of (ugh!) Christmas cards.
The problem with holiday cards can best be summed up this way: Suppose I want to send people cards. I make out a list of people to send cards to, and send them out, thinking that I'm doing something nice. But, without fail, there are always a few inconsiderate boobs who end up sending me a card when I didn't send them a card, making me look callous and insensitive to those nice people. Meanwhile, all those who received a card from me who didn't send me a card in return feel guilty due to the fact that I sent them a card, but didn't get one in return. It seems like the number of people who got cards from me but didn't reciprocate, and who sent me cards when I didn't send them one, always outnumbers the people who got cards from me and sent one in return! So, to those few friends of mine who were nice enough to NOT send me a Christmas card this year when I didn't send them one either, I decide to reward by sending a card next year!
You know what? Screw that. Now you all know why I don't bother with Christmas cards.
I don't much bother with cards in general, either. The people who send them mean well, I know they do. It's just that they think they're sending me a little piece of paper to let me know that they're thinking of me, when in reality they're sending a piece of paper to convince themselves they're doing something nice to a person they probably don't know very well and to whom they can't think of anything to say in a meaningful letter or e-mail. So, I get this sappy little message which I didn't ask for, and don't particularly want, which is supposed to make me all warm-and-fuzzy, when all it really does is put me in an ethical dilemma over whether or not I keep this useless item in permanent storage in a shoe-box, there to be toted by me from apartment to apartment and residence to residence for all eternity, or whether I have to subject myself to permanent guilt by throwing it in the trash. This is doing something nice for me? I didn't ask for this huge responsibility to be thrown upon my shoulders!
For this reason, I dispensed with the feeling of guilt over cards a long time ago. They go out with the sale ads, un-clippped coupons, and overdue tuition notices. If I get one, I smile, then throw it away without a second thought. The nice person who sent me one isn't really going to police what I do with it by stopping over and asking where on the mantle her card is being displayed (unless she's a Jewish grandmother), so why should I mind getting rid of it? For that matter, why should anyone else, especially the sender?
Not that I don't, at some level, appreciate getting a card. As I say, there is some genuine good feeling behind the act of sending one. But if it's going to make my friend feel guilty about eventually throwing it out, why send it in the first place? My more rational friends realize this. They never send me cards, and I gratefully show my appreciation of this by never sending them cards either. Not for birthdays, not for graduations, not for holidays. It's quite a relief, actually, to have such understanding friends who are so good as to be pleasant enough to spend time with, but who will never stuff my mailbox with clutter. Life is good.
Sometimes I rather like getting a card. For example, I got one recently from the National Center for Science Education, signed by Dr. Eugenie Scott and her wonderful staff. Now THAT'S a card I intend to keep in my files for all eternity, not just because such a prestigious organization would bother with me, but because those are all people I really love over there. And if some future biographers feel that I actually merit attention, and want to go through my things, they'll find that card, and know how genuinely close I felt to all those kindred souls. Beautiful! A card, when given in the right way, and given for the right reason, at the right time, can be a good thing!
Nevertheless, there are always people who think that giving a card is some ubiquitous thing that is to be done whenever one wants to give the appearance of being nice, and that's hardly being nice at all, in my estimation. Just yesterday I received a card from the office staff at work, most of whom go about their business in a different building from me, and who haven't seen me in a little over three years. They all signed it. I know that this was meant as a gesture to make me feel welcomed, part of the team, one of the family, etc. But really it's just a corporate gimmick designed to make me feel happier in a job that is far beneath my talents and abilities, and pays me according to that standard. I'm certainly not the only employee to receive such a card. Everyone, from the janitorial staff to the cafeteria cooks, got one. So how really special is it then? I honestly don't know which is worse: that this supposedly nice gesture came about as a result of corporate edict inflicted upon everyone by the boss from on-high, or that a percentage of resources, which at least included purchasing costs and the five or ten minutes (at least) of each staff member's hourly wage that everyone had to sacrifice in order to sign all these cards together. I could think of far better uses for their time, and considerably far better uses for the money! I'm thinking, just to get back at them, that I should send them a huge glossy saying "Merry Christmas!" with an overtly flamboyant flower bouquet. That would certainly serve them right, wouldn't it!
On second thought, nah. They wouldn't understand. They'd probably just send me an even bigger card next year.
Eric
The problem with holiday cards can best be summed up this way: Suppose I want to send people cards. I make out a list of people to send cards to, and send them out, thinking that I'm doing something nice. But, without fail, there are always a few inconsiderate boobs who end up sending me a card when I didn't send them a card, making me look callous and insensitive to those nice people. Meanwhile, all those who received a card from me who didn't send me a card in return feel guilty due to the fact that I sent them a card, but didn't get one in return. It seems like the number of people who got cards from me but didn't reciprocate, and who sent me cards when I didn't send them one, always outnumbers the people who got cards from me and sent one in return! So, to those few friends of mine who were nice enough to NOT send me a Christmas card this year when I didn't send them one either, I decide to reward by sending a card next year!
You know what? Screw that. Now you all know why I don't bother with Christmas cards.
I don't much bother with cards in general, either. The people who send them mean well, I know they do. It's just that they think they're sending me a little piece of paper to let me know that they're thinking of me, when in reality they're sending a piece of paper to convince themselves they're doing something nice to a person they probably don't know very well and to whom they can't think of anything to say in a meaningful letter or e-mail. So, I get this sappy little message which I didn't ask for, and don't particularly want, which is supposed to make me all warm-and-fuzzy, when all it really does is put me in an ethical dilemma over whether or not I keep this useless item in permanent storage in a shoe-box, there to be toted by me from apartment to apartment and residence to residence for all eternity, or whether I have to subject myself to permanent guilt by throwing it in the trash. This is doing something nice for me? I didn't ask for this huge responsibility to be thrown upon my shoulders!
For this reason, I dispensed with the feeling of guilt over cards a long time ago. They go out with the sale ads, un-clippped coupons, and overdue tuition notices. If I get one, I smile, then throw it away without a second thought. The nice person who sent me one isn't really going to police what I do with it by stopping over and asking where on the mantle her card is being displayed (unless she's a Jewish grandmother), so why should I mind getting rid of it? For that matter, why should anyone else, especially the sender?
Not that I don't, at some level, appreciate getting a card. As I say, there is some genuine good feeling behind the act of sending one. But if it's going to make my friend feel guilty about eventually throwing it out, why send it in the first place? My more rational friends realize this. They never send me cards, and I gratefully show my appreciation of this by never sending them cards either. Not for birthdays, not for graduations, not for holidays. It's quite a relief, actually, to have such understanding friends who are so good as to be pleasant enough to spend time with, but who will never stuff my mailbox with clutter. Life is good.
Sometimes I rather like getting a card. For example, I got one recently from the National Center for Science Education, signed by Dr. Eugenie Scott and her wonderful staff. Now THAT'S a card I intend to keep in my files for all eternity, not just because such a prestigious organization would bother with me, but because those are all people I really love over there. And if some future biographers feel that I actually merit attention, and want to go through my things, they'll find that card, and know how genuinely close I felt to all those kindred souls. Beautiful! A card, when given in the right way, and given for the right reason, at the right time, can be a good thing!
Nevertheless, there are always people who think that giving a card is some ubiquitous thing that is to be done whenever one wants to give the appearance of being nice, and that's hardly being nice at all, in my estimation. Just yesterday I received a card from the office staff at work, most of whom go about their business in a different building from me, and who haven't seen me in a little over three years. They all signed it. I know that this was meant as a gesture to make me feel welcomed, part of the team, one of the family, etc. But really it's just a corporate gimmick designed to make me feel happier in a job that is far beneath my talents and abilities, and pays me according to that standard. I'm certainly not the only employee to receive such a card. Everyone, from the janitorial staff to the cafeteria cooks, got one. So how really special is it then? I honestly don't know which is worse: that this supposedly nice gesture came about as a result of corporate edict inflicted upon everyone by the boss from on-high, or that a percentage of resources, which at least included purchasing costs and the five or ten minutes (at least) of each staff member's hourly wage that everyone had to sacrifice in order to sign all these cards together. I could think of far better uses for their time, and considerably far better uses for the money! I'm thinking, just to get back at them, that I should send them a huge glossy saying "Merry Christmas!" with an overtly flamboyant flower bouquet. That would certainly serve them right, wouldn't it!
On second thought, nah. They wouldn't understand. They'd probably just send me an even bigger card next year.
Eric
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Computers and Economics
In this wonderful age of technology we live in, computers can do amazing things. They can bring characters like Golum to life so realistically that we can believe he can actually exist (or that a creature can be that anorexic and still kick a hobbit's ass). They can connect people together in a mass social network that requires terabytes of memory and gigawatts of power. They can bring us smart phones, teach us a foreign language in several weeks, or make a killing in the stock market based on a two-tenths of a millisecond faster processing speed than a competitor.
So why the hell can't all this computer power make us smarter in economics?
With the competing ideas of economics in our ridiculously hyper-divided political "system," in full scale war, what we, the people, need more than ever, is a game-like computer model that shows us just how economics works, whereby we can see how a nation like the U.S. does using various economic approaches. In other words, you can play the computer game as the United States, tweak government-controllable factors like money spent on education, raising or lowering of taxes, raising or lowering of interest rates, raising or lowering of social programs, and then hit "fast forward" to see how the nation will look in the future.
What a great idea! Every citizen could simply plug in Mitt Romney's ideas vs. Barack Obama's ideas to see which one produces the better future! And with a tool like that, all the rhetoric becomes meaningless! What an essential tool! Every voter should have one!
Unfortunately, all we have is Simcountry.
Why is it that games that involve money and economics always need some sort of war going on? You harvest crystals, gather spice, tap lands, or do some other inane thing for money which has nothing to do with the real world. What a waste!
Such computer models exist. We know they're out there. Ben Bernanke, our current Fed Reserve Chairman, developed such a computer model back in the 1980's. The University of Chicago has one. M.I.T. has one. The University of Wisconsin, I hope, has one.
What I don't get is why we all don't have one.
All it takes is one, JUST ONE economist who has access to such a computer model to releasee it into the general public, maybe even make it into a game, and all this political bullshit we're enduring will go away. Even if a model which is slanted to one side or the other is released, it won't matter, because the opposition will respond in kind, and people will be able to evaluate for themselves.
JUST ONE ECONOMIST! Is that too much to ask? Anyone out there? Anyone?
When economic information is so very critical to our survival, both as a nation, and to ourselves personally, I guess I can no longer fathom why we all clamor with "angry birds" or internet cats.
Eric
So why the hell can't all this computer power make us smarter in economics?
With the competing ideas of economics in our ridiculously hyper-divided political "system," in full scale war, what we, the people, need more than ever, is a game-like computer model that shows us just how economics works, whereby we can see how a nation like the U.S. does using various economic approaches. In other words, you can play the computer game as the United States, tweak government-controllable factors like money spent on education, raising or lowering of taxes, raising or lowering of interest rates, raising or lowering of social programs, and then hit "fast forward" to see how the nation will look in the future.
What a great idea! Every citizen could simply plug in Mitt Romney's ideas vs. Barack Obama's ideas to see which one produces the better future! And with a tool like that, all the rhetoric becomes meaningless! What an essential tool! Every voter should have one!
Unfortunately, all we have is Simcountry.
Why is it that games that involve money and economics always need some sort of war going on? You harvest crystals, gather spice, tap lands, or do some other inane thing for money which has nothing to do with the real world. What a waste!
Such computer models exist. We know they're out there. Ben Bernanke, our current Fed Reserve Chairman, developed such a computer model back in the 1980's. The University of Chicago has one. M.I.T. has one. The University of Wisconsin, I hope, has one.
What I don't get is why we all don't have one.
All it takes is one, JUST ONE economist who has access to such a computer model to releasee it into the general public, maybe even make it into a game, and all this political bullshit we're enduring will go away. Even if a model which is slanted to one side or the other is released, it won't matter, because the opposition will respond in kind, and people will be able to evaluate for themselves.
JUST ONE ECONOMIST! Is that too much to ask? Anyone out there? Anyone?
When economic information is so very critical to our survival, both as a nation, and to ourselves personally, I guess I can no longer fathom why we all clamor with "angry birds" or internet cats.
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)