Are there any women out there who actually date men? I think every woman I've talked to this century has only ever wanted to date cars and/or certain types of jobs. The man part seems incidental, if anything.
I was talking to this girl on Plenty of Fish. She appeared out of nowhere, but unlike every other girl who's done so on that site, I was actually interested immediately upon reading her profile. Things progressed quickly and determinedly, just as I would prefer - fast enough to keep me from friendzoning her (I feel I should share here that my confidence is non-existent. It's been eroded away over the years unsurprisingly by the 100% rejection rate I have suffered this century so even a hint of doubt or delay on the girl's part and I'll defensively and emotionally distance myself from her in a perverse form of protection. The only exception comes from crushes whom as past entries in this series can attest, I will suffer any indignity and hardship in the pursuit of my goal) and not so fast that I couldn't keep up - it was great. We were quickly texting one and other and a date was actually set up for this coming Monday. Perfect. Curse over...finally. But then I made the mistake of looking forward to it and wouldn't you know, yesterday these doubts about my night job and lack of a car (which I am willing to work around and by work around, I don't mean "she can drive me places" - I'm willing to put the effort in and since I know being with me would be initially difficult, I'm willing to put in the extra sacrifice as well to cover for my shortcomings - But to no avail) crept up into the conversation and after airing her reservations, cancelled the date so as of now, I am still unstuck in time...it is still September 1991 for the part of my mind that undoubtedly houses my confidence. Even the Langoliers have forgotten about me...
To be perfectly misogynistic for a moment, this is one of those times where I truly feel the average man is superior to the average woman. Speaking for me personally, I don't care if the woman I like lives at home or lives on her own (with or without roommates); I don't care if she has a car or, like me, never learned to drive; and I certainly don't care what kind of job she has or even if she has one. Bronx was all three of these things (lived at home, couldn't drive, and had no job) but I would've been totally willing to date her if she felt the same way about me. Would it have been difficult? Hell yes, but it's something I want so I'm willing to sacrifice and attempt to overcome the adversity because the reward is so great. The only thing I require of a woman is that I be physically attracted to her but I don't think that is too much to ask since I would want the girl I'm with to be attracted to me as well.
Back to the drawing board...again...and a little weaker to show for it.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
ATB QUARTER FATIGUE
The America the Beautiful Quarter program started in 2010. Like the State Quarter series which preceded it, it is a eleven-ish year program featuring five designs a year for each of the fifty states and six U.S. territories with devices depicting a national park or historic site, one from each state/territory and in the order they were introduced. Eleven designs have been issued thus far starting with Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas. The series so far does not appear to be enjoying any level of popularity except with hard-core collectors. There are several reasons for this.
One, the mintages for the designs thus far have been unusually low due to a huge glut of state quarters produced from 1999-2009 and a stagnant economy dampening coin production in general. The mintages for the first eleven parks currently just about equal the entire mintage of the Delaware Quarter. That's right, a little over two years worth of quarters does not even equal the amount made of the very first State Quarter. Because of this, you may not have encountered many, or even any, at all. I work with money at my job and even with first access, I have seen less than $15 worth of ATB quarter designs since the program's inception. This creates a lack of awareness and that is not helpful.
Nextly, while some parks are famous (Grand Canyon National Park), others are decidedly less so (Chaco Culture National Historical Park). At least with the states, you are more aware of them thanks to Geography classes and the news (especially during elections). Keeping the various designs in mind is difficult because in addition to several of these parks not being widely known, their release order does not mirror the order the states joined the union like in the State Quarter series. This makes keeping track of (and even knowing) what you're missing is considerably more difficult without a guide.
I think aesthetically a different obverse would have been in order. When you think of National Parks, which President do you associate with them? Did you say President Theodore Roosevelt? Even if you didn't, a lot of people did and thought his image should be on the obverse of the new quarter, replacing George Washington. However, as politics would have it, Washington was retained because no politician wanted to be associated with removing him from the quarter never mind that over 72 BILLION quarters exist with his bust on them (and that's not counting the silver ones made from 1932-1964 which no longer circulate) and that he is on the first Presidential Dollar coin AND he's still on the one dollar bill made by the billions each year. Washington would not be going anywhere. A quick search of a handful of quarters would show dates going back to 1965. Almost fifty years after quarters lost their silver, they can still be found and found rather readily. Even if the ATB program ultimately yielded the same 35 billion quarters the State Quarter program yielded over its lifetime, they would still be outnumbered over 2 to 1. Washington would still be ever-present in your pocket change but such logic would not sway Congress. Instead, it is still Washington on the obverse though we collectors were thrown a bone by having his bust restored to be more like it was in 1932 when the design was first introduced. I like it (just like I appreciate the restored Lincoln portrait on the new Union Shield cents), but because our coins no longer have slightly concave fields and their relief has been sharply reduced over the years, the design is rather flat and appears nearly featureless at most viewing angles. Maybe they'll look better with some toning. Still I think T. Roosevelt should have been the design on the obverse of these quarters. It may have helped spur interest in the series.
Some good will come of all this though. Eventually mintages will rise and when that happens, awareness will build. If people start collecting these designs with even a quarter (no pun intended) the ferocity shown with the State Quarter program, that will put pressure on the supplies of the lower mintage designs which may benefit those who entered into the program right away. But I don't actually think that would do it. I think this series will always suffer due to collector fatigue and because it is not as compelling as the State Quarter series.
No, I think what would be the best the way to promote interest in the series would be a genuine rarity...or at least the perception of one. Currently the El Yunque design (forest preserve in Puerto Rico) is the lowest mintage at about 25 million per mint. Now while that is low for modern coin production, it is still not low from a collectible standpoint unless more people start collecting these coins than its total mintage. That would actually be interesting from my standpoint propelling its value upward. If the series remains neglected for a few more years and suddenly breaks out, it could pay off well for some people. But I think a design would need to be lower than that...at least less than 10 million from at least one mint. It could happen if circumstances intervene like another recession and like what happened in 2002 when the Philadelphia Mint had to close for six weeks. It caused the production of Ohio quarters to be significantly less than other designs of that year (about 220 million were made anyway so don't get excited). If the mintage of one such design were to be less than 10 million pieces, it would definitely drive interest in that design which then might carry over into the rest of the series. Hell, that scenario would even excite me and I really try not to be bothered with modern coins.
I don't feel like concluding this properly so that's all you get.
ADDENDUM: Apparently I am not the only one who had this idea.
One, the mintages for the designs thus far have been unusually low due to a huge glut of state quarters produced from 1999-2009 and a stagnant economy dampening coin production in general. The mintages for the first eleven parks currently just about equal the entire mintage of the Delaware Quarter. That's right, a little over two years worth of quarters does not even equal the amount made of the very first State Quarter. Because of this, you may not have encountered many, or even any, at all. I work with money at my job and even with first access, I have seen less than $15 worth of ATB quarter designs since the program's inception. This creates a lack of awareness and that is not helpful.
Nextly, while some parks are famous (Grand Canyon National Park), others are decidedly less so (Chaco Culture National Historical Park). At least with the states, you are more aware of them thanks to Geography classes and the news (especially during elections). Keeping the various designs in mind is difficult because in addition to several of these parks not being widely known, their release order does not mirror the order the states joined the union like in the State Quarter series. This makes keeping track of (and even knowing) what you're missing is considerably more difficult without a guide.
I think aesthetically a different obverse would have been in order. When you think of National Parks, which President do you associate with them? Did you say President Theodore Roosevelt? Even if you didn't, a lot of people did and thought his image should be on the obverse of the new quarter, replacing George Washington. However, as politics would have it, Washington was retained because no politician wanted to be associated with removing him from the quarter never mind that over 72 BILLION quarters exist with his bust on them (and that's not counting the silver ones made from 1932-1964 which no longer circulate) and that he is on the first Presidential Dollar coin AND he's still on the one dollar bill made by the billions each year. Washington would not be going anywhere. A quick search of a handful of quarters would show dates going back to 1965. Almost fifty years after quarters lost their silver, they can still be found and found rather readily. Even if the ATB program ultimately yielded the same 35 billion quarters the State Quarter program yielded over its lifetime, they would still be outnumbered over 2 to 1. Washington would still be ever-present in your pocket change but such logic would not sway Congress. Instead, it is still Washington on the obverse though we collectors were thrown a bone by having his bust restored to be more like it was in 1932 when the design was first introduced. I like it (just like I appreciate the restored Lincoln portrait on the new Union Shield cents), but because our coins no longer have slightly concave fields and their relief has been sharply reduced over the years, the design is rather flat and appears nearly featureless at most viewing angles. Maybe they'll look better with some toning. Still I think T. Roosevelt should have been the design on the obverse of these quarters. It may have helped spur interest in the series.
Some good will come of all this though. Eventually mintages will rise and when that happens, awareness will build. If people start collecting these designs with even a quarter (no pun intended) the ferocity shown with the State Quarter program, that will put pressure on the supplies of the lower mintage designs which may benefit those who entered into the program right away. But I don't actually think that would do it. I think this series will always suffer due to collector fatigue and because it is not as compelling as the State Quarter series.
No, I think what would be the best the way to promote interest in the series would be a genuine rarity...or at least the perception of one. Currently the El Yunque design (forest preserve in Puerto Rico) is the lowest mintage at about 25 million per mint. Now while that is low for modern coin production, it is still not low from a collectible standpoint unless more people start collecting these coins than its total mintage. That would actually be interesting from my standpoint propelling its value upward. If the series remains neglected for a few more years and suddenly breaks out, it could pay off well for some people. But I think a design would need to be lower than that...at least less than 10 million from at least one mint. It could happen if circumstances intervene like another recession and like what happened in 2002 when the Philadelphia Mint had to close for six weeks. It caused the production of Ohio quarters to be significantly less than other designs of that year (about 220 million were made anyway so don't get excited). If the mintage of one such design were to be less than 10 million pieces, it would definitely drive interest in that design which then might carry over into the rest of the series. Hell, that scenario would even excite me and I really try not to be bothered with modern coins.
I don't feel like concluding this properly so that's all you get.
ADDENDUM: Apparently I am not the only one who had this idea.
PROPERTY TAXES SHMOPERTY TAXES
Property taxes are a perennial favorite of newspapers to do articles about. They're always on the rise, especially at rates exceeding inflation, making homeownership ever more difficult, especially for those on fixed incomes and there's never a solution that feels workable that's proposed. Sure, there's caps on how fast they can be risen and relief in the form of rebates is sometimes done, but the crux of these articles appears to be senior citizens who are said to be priced out of their own homes of many years due to rising property taxation.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume property taxation is a necessary evil. I know there's a contingent who believe it should be outlawed as they see such taxation as un-American or confiscatory but that's a whole different debate. Here I'm gonna take the "Property Taxes Are Necessary" road and offer, not so much a solution, but at least one that keeps the plight of fixed-income senior citizens in mind.
I think the root problem of property taxes is assessment. Properties (I'm only vouching for New Jersey here) are assigned a "fair market value" by an assessor and it is that value which determines your tax which is calculated as a percentage per $1000 in value. The assessment part is actually my contention. I'm one of those people who believes an item has no value until it is sold so my proposal would be to assess property taxes based on its last known value. After all, how can you tell me my house is worth more than I paid for it if I have no intention of selling it? This way if you bought a home in the 1960s for $40,000 and are still living there, your property taxes would be calculated using that value. When the house is sold, it would be sold for whatever it would get in 2012 and the property taxes would then be calculated based on that new value. Think of it as a form of rent control that doubles as a means to reward loyalty. Since inflation is omnipresent in our lives, the longer you stay put, the less each year the burden would be on you provided you don't move.
And yes, I would provide exceptions as well as a means for the state to challenge the value of a house. Firstly, if a house is inherited, it would only be fair to the state to have an assessor come by and determine the fair market value of the house. Its last known value is lost when its last known owner passes or transfers the deed. Secondly, if a house is sold suspiciously below market value, the state should have a right to challenge the sale. If the state wins, then an assessor comes by and determines the fair market value. If the state loses, bonus for you. Thirdly, additions to the home (but not routine maintenance) would be added to the home's value. That only seems fair and what constitutes an addition would be left to the municipalities to decide. Finally, this method I think acts as a dampener for real estate speculation. If you overpay for a house, you're gonna be paying extra in property taxes as a result giving a buyer pause when bidding up a property.
I think this method should work since it is unusual, especially these days, for people to remain in a single home for a lifetime and even if a town becomes a whole town of never-sells, the percentage per $1000 in value can always be adjusted to compensate. That way, it puts a natural limit on how beneficial staying put can be. If too many people stick around, property taxes will start to rise but if only a few people do, you will be rewarded with lower taxes year after year as inflation raises the sale prices of the homes around you.
I don't see why this could not be done.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume property taxation is a necessary evil. I know there's a contingent who believe it should be outlawed as they see such taxation as un-American or confiscatory but that's a whole different debate. Here I'm gonna take the "Property Taxes Are Necessary" road and offer, not so much a solution, but at least one that keeps the plight of fixed-income senior citizens in mind.
I think the root problem of property taxes is assessment. Properties (I'm only vouching for New Jersey here) are assigned a "fair market value" by an assessor and it is that value which determines your tax which is calculated as a percentage per $1000 in value. The assessment part is actually my contention. I'm one of those people who believes an item has no value until it is sold so my proposal would be to assess property taxes based on its last known value. After all, how can you tell me my house is worth more than I paid for it if I have no intention of selling it? This way if you bought a home in the 1960s for $40,000 and are still living there, your property taxes would be calculated using that value. When the house is sold, it would be sold for whatever it would get in 2012 and the property taxes would then be calculated based on that new value. Think of it as a form of rent control that doubles as a means to reward loyalty. Since inflation is omnipresent in our lives, the longer you stay put, the less each year the burden would be on you provided you don't move.
And yes, I would provide exceptions as well as a means for the state to challenge the value of a house. Firstly, if a house is inherited, it would only be fair to the state to have an assessor come by and determine the fair market value of the house. Its last known value is lost when its last known owner passes or transfers the deed. Secondly, if a house is sold suspiciously below market value, the state should have a right to challenge the sale. If the state wins, then an assessor comes by and determines the fair market value. If the state loses, bonus for you. Thirdly, additions to the home (but not routine maintenance) would be added to the home's value. That only seems fair and what constitutes an addition would be left to the municipalities to decide. Finally, this method I think acts as a dampener for real estate speculation. If you overpay for a house, you're gonna be paying extra in property taxes as a result giving a buyer pause when bidding up a property.
I think this method should work since it is unusual, especially these days, for people to remain in a single home for a lifetime and even if a town becomes a whole town of never-sells, the percentage per $1000 in value can always be adjusted to compensate. That way, it puts a natural limit on how beneficial staying put can be. If too many people stick around, property taxes will start to rise but if only a few people do, you will be rewarded with lower taxes year after year as inflation raises the sale prices of the homes around you.
I don't see why this could not be done.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
BADASS NOTE IS BADASS
Look at this note:
 |
That's the back-side of a 1918 series $1 Federal Reserve Bank Note. Why isn't that design still on our dollars today? It's so badass-looking. It's like the dollar of the Colbert Nation. A defiant, angry eagle; already impressive in its own right, ready to impale you with the American flag if you dare go against it.
And why would you go against it? That's right, you're accepting this dollar. It's been secured by United States Certificates of Indebtedness and/or United States one-year Gold Notes. They've been deposited with the Treasurer of the United States and payable to the bearer on demand...ON DEMAND!!! That dollar is guaranteed, dear citizen (unless you're intending to use it to pay import duties or interest on the public debt, then you're SOL). It's National Currency asshole!
And why would you go against it? That's right, you're accepting this dollar. It's been secured by United States Certificates of Indebtedness and/or United States one-year Gold Notes. They've been deposited with the Treasurer of the United States and payable to the bearer on demand...ON DEMAND!!! That dollar is guaranteed, dear citizen (unless you're intending to use it to pay import duties or interest on the public debt, then you're SOL). It's National Currency asshole!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
BLOGGER MAKES SHAMELESS ATTEMPT TO BOOST HIT COUNT BY REFERRING TO POPULAR UPCOMING MOVIE
I saw this article about Jennifer Lawrence who will be playing Katniss Everdeen in the upcoming film The Hunger Games (shameless tie-in!) in the New York Daily News this past Sunday. I couldn't help but remark on her "discovery". She and her mother were on a vacation in New York City when a talent scout happened upon her asking to take her picture which he did and dutifully farmed her out to various agencies and such. Some commercial work would follow as well as a spot on MTV's "My Super Sweet 16" (which I guess you can add to the list of fake reality shows...I wonder how long it will be before television has perverted the word "reality" into a form which means the opposite of what originally did? And yes, this has happened before) before landing what will almost certainly be the role that will make her a superstar (or at least superrich).
What bugs me about all this is not the guy who's figured out how to turn being a pervert into a paying gig; but rather, this in-your-face reminder about just how there really is no such thing as an acting profession. Usually this reminder is brought to your attention whenever a biopic is made because you know damn well the reason the lead landed the role was his/her resemblance to the man/woman they're portraying. It's also brought to your attention when children of famous actors land roles not because they're necessarily any good, but because his or her mother/father was an actor. How insulting to students in high school and college who are really trying their damnedest to believably act and emote to an audience; people who actually take the time to audition and work their way up the food-chain only to find some schmuck land a role simply for being happened upon by a scout while minding their own business and having no prior acting experience whatsoever. It's even quoted in the linked article: “[T]hey [talent scouts] have that vision and they have that uncanny ability to see a girl with no makeup who’s working in a fast food restaurant and know that with the right haircut … or the right presence in front of a camera, she could potentially be a star.” It's all luck people. Fuck your "skills".
I feel bad for "camera-ugly" men and women who can give performances that would make even the hardest of hearts soften (and especially genuinely ugly men and women possessing such talents) because they'll never get a chance because they are not photogenic. It's not about the performance, it's about the look because really, wow, what a coincidence...another beautiful actress or handsome actor...isn't that amazing these talents the beautiful people naturally possess? Ugh...I just want to believe that acting is real, but it's clearly not and it bothers me sometimes. Maybe it's like professional wrestling...at some point you realize it's a sham and you have to come to terms with it and the sad people are the ones that refuse to accept that reality. Perhaps the drama clubs in high schools around the country are full of just those people, the ones who've refused to see or accept that their dream profession has far less to do with actual ability than it has to do with simply looking the part. Sure, there may be some occasionally brilliant actors who have managed to make it but for every one of them, there seems to be several dozen talent-scout finds...people who had the right jaw structure, stature, breast-size, smile, etc. for the role and they can wing it on the acting later...that's what multiple takes are for, right?
Maybe Jennifer Lawrence is the natural the people quoted in the linked article claim her to be. But even if she's the next Patrick Stewart or Andreas Katsulas or Ian McKellan, it still doesn't change the fact that her discovery is trotted out like it's a good thing. Actors shouldn't be akin to lottery winners. Just as the latter are lavished upon with riches they have not earned (fuck you "they bought the ticket"), the former receive undue adulation and fame for being no more than tourists or employees or genetic approximations. And yet the media is all over such discoveries, happily compiling them in articles for you the reader to fawn over because maybe you, YES YOU! could be the next movie star discovered by these assholes. Acting's one of those public professions that could be truly meritorious but instead it's the same old, same old.
Life isn't fair...I get it, but that doesn't mean I like having it rubbed in my face.
What bugs me about all this is not the guy who's figured out how to turn being a pervert into a paying gig; but rather, this in-your-face reminder about just how there really is no such thing as an acting profession. Usually this reminder is brought to your attention whenever a biopic is made because you know damn well the reason the lead landed the role was his/her resemblance to the man/woman they're portraying. It's also brought to your attention when children of famous actors land roles not because they're necessarily any good, but because his or her mother/father was an actor. How insulting to students in high school and college who are really trying their damnedest to believably act and emote to an audience; people who actually take the time to audition and work their way up the food-chain only to find some schmuck land a role simply for being happened upon by a scout while minding their own business and having no prior acting experience whatsoever. It's even quoted in the linked article: “[T]hey [talent scouts] have that vision and they have that uncanny ability to see a girl with no makeup who’s working in a fast food restaurant and know that with the right haircut … or the right presence in front of a camera, she could potentially be a star.” It's all luck people. Fuck your "skills".
I feel bad for "camera-ugly" men and women who can give performances that would make even the hardest of hearts soften (and especially genuinely ugly men and women possessing such talents) because they'll never get a chance because they are not photogenic. It's not about the performance, it's about the look because really, wow, what a coincidence...another beautiful actress or handsome actor...isn't that amazing these talents the beautiful people naturally possess? Ugh...I just want to believe that acting is real, but it's clearly not and it bothers me sometimes. Maybe it's like professional wrestling...at some point you realize it's a sham and you have to come to terms with it and the sad people are the ones that refuse to accept that reality. Perhaps the drama clubs in high schools around the country are full of just those people, the ones who've refused to see or accept that their dream profession has far less to do with actual ability than it has to do with simply looking the part. Sure, there may be some occasionally brilliant actors who have managed to make it but for every one of them, there seems to be several dozen talent-scout finds...people who had the right jaw structure, stature, breast-size, smile, etc. for the role and they can wing it on the acting later...that's what multiple takes are for, right?
Maybe Jennifer Lawrence is the natural the people quoted in the linked article claim her to be. But even if she's the next Patrick Stewart or Andreas Katsulas or Ian McKellan, it still doesn't change the fact that her discovery is trotted out like it's a good thing. Actors shouldn't be akin to lottery winners. Just as the latter are lavished upon with riches they have not earned (fuck you "they bought the ticket"), the former receive undue adulation and fame for being no more than tourists or employees or genetic approximations. And yet the media is all over such discoveries, happily compiling them in articles for you the reader to fawn over because maybe you, YES YOU! could be the next movie star discovered by these assholes. Acting's one of those public professions that could be truly meritorious but instead it's the same old, same old.
Life isn't fair...I get it, but that doesn't mean I like having it rubbed in my face.
SO MUCH FOR THAT...
I had my first sneezing fit in about three months this past Saturday. I guess SOMEthing was in the air because I'm pretty sure I was well-rested for once. At least I wasn't the only one...a fellow employee was sneezing a lot at work too. I'm really annoyed though. Three months of "work" down the drain. My nose is all stuffy again making it difficult to sleep. I can only hope that this time around, it will clear up faster than before as a pathway has already been started but we'll see.....
Thursday, March 15, 2012
I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS SHIT, part XXXIV
"Dancing Crazy" by Miranda Cosgrove
This song sounds so incredibly high-schooly: I shouldn't even know it exists but the manager at work likes the Hitline station on MUZAK so I get to hear what the kids today are listening to. I can feel that this song would have been popular had it come out when I was still a student. I really don't want to like this song, but I do. It's that "I like you and you like me; we get together and we're hap-py" part that gets me. Yes, I am a faggot.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
HEART OF FACEBOOK DARKNESS...
I am finally in a depressed-enough position to present another edition of rejected Facebook posts. A girl took a sudden interest in me on Plenty of Fish, and though we had texted and actually talked, I fear once again I am a One-Call Wonder.
As with previous posts (follow the tag), Facebook status updates get rejected due to changing circumstances, because they have fallen out of favor, or because I wrote too many on a single topic. I limit myself to a single update per day (if that) so multiple variations on a theme means many of these updates end up in "the pile". They get mixed up over time so I wouldn't concern yourself with chronology...
As with previous posts (follow the tag), Facebook status updates get rejected due to changing circumstances, because they have fallen out of favor, or because I wrote too many on a single topic. I limit myself to a single update per day (if that) so multiple variations on a theme means many of these updates end up in "the pile". They get mixed up over time so I wouldn't concern yourself with chronology...
Friday, March 9, 2012
THIS BLOG IS SEARCHABLE, RIGHT?
I remember this song off the MUZAK player at work. I loved it but could not find it via a Google search for the life of me. No one had ever heard of the song and no matter how much of the lyrics I collected (and those lyrics were hardly generic), it would not turn up in a search. I only found the name of the group and song via the brute force method: I hung around the MUZAK site watching what was playing on the station I had heard the song on (FM1) and kept checking back periodically for days until the song came up again. I was thrilled when I had finally succeeded and "Greeting Committee" by The Pillbugs became the first MP3 I had ever purchased online. I actually put in efforts to get the lyrics of this song posted online, but for some reason, though accepted by various sites, they never got published. Let me (hopefully) rectify this now.
So without further ado, let me post the lyrics to this song. Anything I'm uncertain of is in parentheses.
"Greeting Committee" by The Pillbugs
So without further ado, let me post the lyrics to this song. Anything I'm uncertain of is in parentheses.
"GREETING COMMITTEE"
by
THE PILLBUGS
Something tells me I should skip this drink
Things could change the moment that I blink
I don't think they're coming for me
Ever since I dared to arrive
Until the moment they go away from here
I can't rest my mind
Something tells me
This is not a paranoid assumption
To be lightly cast aside
(And) I've been trying to sleep with open eyes
According to my calculations
They'll be here before sunrise
And please don't you look at me this way
You'll find out first-hand why
When they come around...
When they come around...
When they come around...
Something tells me I
Better pull myself together
I've been (pushed into the weather)
And it's darker than it's ever been at night
I don't think they're coming for me
Ever since I dared to arrive
And as soon as they go away from here
We can both learn why
Something tells me (logic's opposition)
And I'm certain I'll be wishing it was right
Ooh, when they come around
I don't wanna be found
No, I don't wanna be found here
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
No, no, no, no, no, no
When they come around
"Greeting Committee" by The Pillbugs
 |
| ADDENDUM: Yes. Yes it is. |
Thursday, March 8, 2012
I COULD NEVER BE A BUDDHIST...
One of the things that attracts me to Tolkien's mythology is his vaguely defined concept of "native power" which is imbued in the servants of Eru (God), the Valar and Maiar. It is described in this forum as "When an Ainu manifested a physical body it took some of its native power to do so. They could deconstruct this body and take the power back into themselves any time they wanted. However, if they remained 'Physically manifest' for a long time this process would become increasingly difficult and in the case of Melkor and others that followed him, impossible." (I corrected spelling errors and terms in the preceding) Native Power was also referred to in the creation of the One Ring in which Sauron, its creator, had to put almost all of his remaining native power into it in order to give it the ability to dominate the remaining Rings of Power.
It seems in Tolkien's universe that investing one's power into something else is not a zero-sum game. In the case of Sauron and the One Ring, while Sauron was now considerably weaker when not in possession of the Ring, he is more powerful with the One Ring than he would have been had he never created it. But should the Ring be destroyed (SPOILER ALERT: It was), the power put into it would be lost forever to him. As described in the forum entry: "But if, while manifest in physical form, that body was destroyed by an outside force, the power used to create it (or at least some of it) would be lost to the Ainu. The Valar were the greatest of the Ainur that came to Middle-Earth and could lose a body or two and still be able to create another."
I can't help but feel a connection to that idea. In the metaphors (spirituality if you will) of my mind, I feel as if I have, foolishly or not, divested of myself pieces of my soul and have imparted them unto other people and unto various objects in my life. I feel wasted inside as far more often than not, those whom I have invested those pieces of me into have gone from my life and have left me all the weaker for it. Imparting unto people feels more like a choice whereas imparting unto objects seems to happen as a function of how long I have been in possession of them (which follows rather nicely with the quoted passages above) though it can happen alternatively by virtue of an object having been given to me by a person whom I value or had wished to value. I have several such trinkets in addition to those which have been in my life for many years. My life is a collection of objects bearing with them no obviously discernible pattern. They don't match or belong to a set; my furniture is comprised entirely of cobbled together pieces for instance. Their connection to each other is sentiment; their connection to each other is that we have journeyed long together; their connection is not that they are physically irreplaceable, but that they are spiritually irreplaceable.
I've had with me for about a dozen years, a dreamcatcher made for me by a friend while still in college. It remained with me through several moves until finally breaking last year after moving into my current residence. It was a simple object that had gained elevated importance by virtue of its long-time possession and by the fact that I could never get another from that person. Did you know I actually felt a sense of loss when I found it had broken? Weird, right? The loss wasn't Earth-shattering, but it was there...a small diminishing of my being. I have objects leftover from my grandparents and Dad (all of whom are dead) which carry with them that sense of importance too. I don't wish to imply I'm a hoarder...it's not that. I work to preserve these objects knowing full well that one day something will cause them to be lost and with each such loss, I will feel a little more of that diminishing. I hesitate to think of the day when I have to part with my desk. It's been with me for almost twenty-five of my thirty-three years. When sitting at that desk, to merely touch it is to bring me back to any number of memories and experiences. I can't imagine no longer having that though one day, it will come.
The most crippling of my recent losses was of course, Digby. She took with her a great portion of my power and from more than a single instance too...three times total. Almost a year later, I am not fully recovered...but I'm getting there. I've lost Bronx and the Mystic (I'm calling it finally though really, this has been true since October), both of which hurt, feeling like a slow leak. I am frustrated over attempts to get my Best Friend to meet with another friend of mine whom I think would be a good friend for her. I can feel that investment and fear its never happening. My CD player recently gave out and took with it a moment I shared with Dad when I had bought it. It's one less connection I have to him now (I have actually retained the unit's speakers and should I be able to wire them into a new unit, then the loss will not be a total one after all). That is how much of my life feels...a slow draining. I wish others would impart of themselves unto me in a way which strengthens more than the losses from others have weakened. I am stuck believing now that the only such strengthening could come from a mutual attraction, something I have not definitively experienced in a long time (though I suspect it still with Number Twelve) and something I am not likely to experience for a long time, if ever.
It is strange seeing the First One on Facebook. We are not "friends" there (have not attempted) but she is nonetheless an investment, long thought lost forever, who has reappeared even if only in the cyberworld. My sense of self yearns to stretch forth its hand and reclaim her into my being. She represented a wellspring of creativity back in my teenaged youth. How wonderful it would feel to have a taste of that power once more! How intoxicating it would be immersed once again in that resilient attraction...
If I have a personal One Ring, however, it would be my Best Friend. As long as I have her, I can renew my lost strength within reasonable, though ever-increasing, timeframes and like Sauron, I am stronger with her in my life than I ever would have been had I not imparted upon her a very large part of my being. She has been the best and greatest of my investments. But also like Sauron, I would be permanently weakened without her...a malevolent spirit forever unable to take on a compassionate form ever again. She is greater in power and the strength she can give me than all of my other spiritual investments combined. She is the source of my strength and by virtue of that, my ultimate weakness. Still, I yearn for something...someone, greater...
It seems in Tolkien's universe that investing one's power into something else is not a zero-sum game. In the case of Sauron and the One Ring, while Sauron was now considerably weaker when not in possession of the Ring, he is more powerful with the One Ring than he would have been had he never created it. But should the Ring be destroyed (SPOILER ALERT: It was), the power put into it would be lost forever to him. As described in the forum entry: "But if, while manifest in physical form, that body was destroyed by an outside force, the power used to create it (or at least some of it) would be lost to the Ainu. The Valar were the greatest of the Ainur that came to Middle-Earth and could lose a body or two and still be able to create another."
I can't help but feel a connection to that idea. In the metaphors (spirituality if you will) of my mind, I feel as if I have, foolishly or not, divested of myself pieces of my soul and have imparted them unto other people and unto various objects in my life. I feel wasted inside as far more often than not, those whom I have invested those pieces of me into have gone from my life and have left me all the weaker for it. Imparting unto people feels more like a choice whereas imparting unto objects seems to happen as a function of how long I have been in possession of them (which follows rather nicely with the quoted passages above) though it can happen alternatively by virtue of an object having been given to me by a person whom I value or had wished to value. I have several such trinkets in addition to those which have been in my life for many years. My life is a collection of objects bearing with them no obviously discernible pattern. They don't match or belong to a set; my furniture is comprised entirely of cobbled together pieces for instance. Their connection to each other is sentiment; their connection to each other is that we have journeyed long together; their connection is not that they are physically irreplaceable, but that they are spiritually irreplaceable.
I've had with me for about a dozen years, a dreamcatcher made for me by a friend while still in college. It remained with me through several moves until finally breaking last year after moving into my current residence. It was a simple object that had gained elevated importance by virtue of its long-time possession and by the fact that I could never get another from that person. Did you know I actually felt a sense of loss when I found it had broken? Weird, right? The loss wasn't Earth-shattering, but it was there...a small diminishing of my being. I have objects leftover from my grandparents and Dad (all of whom are dead) which carry with them that sense of importance too. I don't wish to imply I'm a hoarder...it's not that. I work to preserve these objects knowing full well that one day something will cause them to be lost and with each such loss, I will feel a little more of that diminishing. I hesitate to think of the day when I have to part with my desk. It's been with me for almost twenty-five of my thirty-three years. When sitting at that desk, to merely touch it is to bring me back to any number of memories and experiences. I can't imagine no longer having that though one day, it will come.
The most crippling of my recent losses was of course, Digby. She took with her a great portion of my power and from more than a single instance too...three times total. Almost a year later, I am not fully recovered...but I'm getting there. I've lost Bronx and the Mystic (I'm calling it finally though really, this has been true since October), both of which hurt, feeling like a slow leak. I am frustrated over attempts to get my Best Friend to meet with another friend of mine whom I think would be a good friend for her. I can feel that investment and fear its never happening. My CD player recently gave out and took with it a moment I shared with Dad when I had bought it. It's one less connection I have to him now (I have actually retained the unit's speakers and should I be able to wire them into a new unit, then the loss will not be a total one after all). That is how much of my life feels...a slow draining. I wish others would impart of themselves unto me in a way which strengthens more than the losses from others have weakened. I am stuck believing now that the only such strengthening could come from a mutual attraction, something I have not definitively experienced in a long time (though I suspect it still with Number Twelve) and something I am not likely to experience for a long time, if ever.
It is strange seeing the First One on Facebook. We are not "friends" there (have not attempted) but she is nonetheless an investment, long thought lost forever, who has reappeared even if only in the cyberworld. My sense of self yearns to stretch forth its hand and reclaim her into my being. She represented a wellspring of creativity back in my teenaged youth. How wonderful it would feel to have a taste of that power once more! How intoxicating it would be immersed once again in that resilient attraction...
If I have a personal One Ring, however, it would be my Best Friend. As long as I have her, I can renew my lost strength within reasonable, though ever-increasing, timeframes and like Sauron, I am stronger with her in my life than I ever would have been had I not imparted upon her a very large part of my being. She has been the best and greatest of my investments. But also like Sauron, I would be permanently weakened without her...a malevolent spirit forever unable to take on a compassionate form ever again. She is greater in power and the strength she can give me than all of my other spiritual investments combined. She is the source of my strength and by virtue of that, my ultimate weakness. Still, I yearn for something...someone, greater...
Monday, March 5, 2012
IT'S WRITING, NOT THE WRITING PROCESS...
George Carlin brought this up twenty years ago in his HBO stand-up special "Jammin' in New York" and I can't say that it has ever left my mind...the overuse of the word "process". Before I begin my stupid rant, let me give examples of what I'm talking about...
Each of those example sentences contains an inappropriate use of the word process, usually taking the form of "the _____ process". It just bugs the shit out of me every time I read such clumsy phrasing. I can't help but feel the speaker or writer says "the _____ process" in an effort to come across sounding more intelligent than they really are (or in George Carlin's opinion, to make them or the things they're talking about to sound more important than it really is). They're such unnecessary words and I'll show you using those same sentences, but with a slightly different wording.
Good administrators use evaluations to support teachers.
Screening is used to prevent a Minbari from choosing the wrong caste due to others' expectations.
It will also make writing more enjoyable.
You see what I did there? You don't need "the ____ process": you can just use the word represented by the blank. They're extra words unnecessary to both your speech and writing. Drop these unnecessary processes and your speech becomes clearer and less pretentious. An example of correct usage?
Do yourself a favor and refrain from unnecessary wording. Consider the following George Carlin bit your handy-dandy helpful guide. You're welcome...assholes.
Good administrators use the evaluation processes to support teachers
Such a screening process is used to prevent a Minbari from choosing the wrong caste due to others' expectations.
It will also make the writing process more enjoyable.
Each of those example sentences contains an inappropriate use of the word process, usually taking the form of "the _____ process". It just bugs the shit out of me every time I read such clumsy phrasing. I can't help but feel the speaker or writer says "the _____ process" in an effort to come across sounding more intelligent than they really are (or in George Carlin's opinion, to make them or the things they're talking about to sound more important than it really is). They're such unnecessary words and I'll show you using those same sentences, but with a slightly different wording.
Good administrators use evaluations to support teachers.
Screening is used to prevent a Minbari from choosing the wrong caste due to others' expectations.
It will also make writing more enjoyable.
You see what I did there? You don't need "the ____ process": you can just use the word represented by the blank. They're extra words unnecessary to both your speech and writing. Drop these unnecessary processes and your speech becomes clearer and less pretentious. An example of correct usage?
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants make food from light, water, nutrients, and carbon dioxide.
Do yourself a favor and refrain from unnecessary wording. Consider the following George Carlin bit your handy-dandy helpful guide. You're welcome...assholes.
I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS SHIT, part XXXIII
"Tous les Garçons" by Françoise Hardy
I don't normally print the lyrics, but since they're in French, I figure it might help you follow along.
se promènent dans la rue deux par deux
tous les garçons et les filles de mon âge
savent bien ce que c'est d'être heureux
et les yeux dans les yeux et la main dans la main
ils s'en vont amoureux sans peur du lendemain
oui mais moi, je vais seule par les rues, l'âme en peine
oui mais moi, je vais seule, car personne ne m'aime
mes jours comme mes nuits
sont en tous points pareils
sans joies et pleins d'ennuis
personne ne murmure "je t'aime" à mon oreille
tous les garçons et les filles de mon âge
font ensemble des projets d'avenir
tous les garçons et les filles de mon âge
savent très bien ce qu'aimer veut dire
et les yeux dans les yeux et la main dans la main
ils s'en vont amoureux sans peur du lendemain
oui mais moi, je vais seule par les rues, l'âme en peine
oui mais moi, je vais seule, car personne ne m'aime
mes jours comme mes nuits
sont en tous points pareils
sans joies et pleins d'ennuis
oh! quand donc pour moi brillera le soleil?
comme les garçons et les filles de mon âge
connaîtrais-je bientôt ce qu'est l'amour?
comme les garçons et les filles de mon âge
je me demande quand viendra le jour
où les yeux dans ses yeux et la main dans sa main
j'aurai le coeur heureux sans peur du lendemain
le jour où je n'aurai plus du tout l'âme en peine
le jour où moi aussi j'aurai quelqu'un qui m'aime
I'm starting to really like Françoise Hardy. Cracked originally introduced her to me in this article about songs which were ahead of their time using "Je N'Attends Plus Personne" as one of their examples. I had let it go at that until yesterday when a Facebook friend posted the addictive "Oh Oh Cheri". I searched YouTube for some more of her songs that I might like and found the one put up for this post. I'm up to three now. I guess that makes me a fan...fifty years too late.
YOUR AD HERE (unless you're...)
I'm gonna start with some quotes by OpieRadio on Twitter in response to people's responses to what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke regarding recent changes in the law which now require health insurance to cover birth control with no co-pay:
A common response to the first sentiment is (and I'll quote an actual comment): "Of course he has the right [to say what he did]. And thousands of people have the right to say, 'You're an ass, we won't do business with your advertisers.'" I take issue with that.
What do advertisers have to do with a radio program, television show, magazine article, movie, etc. in terms of those shows content? Nothing...so I don't get the association. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I've never viewed any advertising for any show I've ever watched as somehow connected to the show I'm watching and/or listening to. And I resent the people who insist on making this conflation and then taking their trumped up connection to now threaten advertisers with boycotts and other forms of social shaming to further their agendas. And of course, because of these stupid-ass people, the advertisers now have to act like they are in fact part of the shows and programs upon which they advertise. They'll announce the cessation of their partnerships with bullshit lines like, "Our company no longer wishes to be associated with such&such a show" or mentioning something about their company's "image" and/or "reputation". Really? Neither assertion makes sense to me from the point of view of an advertiser. I can only see such points coming about because of stupid assholes conflating advertising with the shows they advertise on.
The point of advertising is to sell your wares and advertising is more effective on platforms which speak to the most people. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I know a lot of people do...millions in fact (or not...maybe). Why would you not want to be associated with that? How is walking away from millions of potential customers a rational business decision? It's not even rational to take a boycott threat seriously. While there have been effective boycotts, they're notable for being small in number. The image and reputation arguments are also invalid. How is Honda's or Toyota's image and/or reputation served by Family Guy? How does Survivor hold up the reputation of Doritos? When you think of Desperate Housewives, does Pepsi come to mind? Who's actually making these associations between what is being advertised and the shows they're watching these ads on? And I don't want to hear absent these associations, bullshit ideas like sex toys would be advertised during children's shows because that wouldn't happen and not because of broadcasters forbidding it but because of demographics. A kid watching the Cartoon Express (I'm old) is not going to be contributing to dildo sales so sex toy vendors aren't going to be dropping their advertising dollars on such programming.
Advertising is a necessary evil and will continue to be so for as long as corporations exist that have products to sell and services to offer. They need to remind you constantly of their existence or they will go away. There's a story I remember (but can't find proof of online...) about a soap company that was so successful that the owner deemed advertising of its product an unnecessary expense so he stopped...and business promptly plummeted. Out of sight, out of mind. His rivals did not stop advertising so they got his business (not that this does not happen). My point is that I don't want to give advertisers power over content decisions on the programs which they advertise: it's not their place. Their decision to advertise should only be based on either total readership/listenership/viewership or the demographics of that audience or both, not over what is being written/said/shown because the latter is not relevant to the former. But that's not the way it works because of the bullying tactics employed by people who don't grasp the concept of free speech.
Simply put, if you don't like what is being said...don't listen to it. No one is forcing you to read an article/listen to a show/watch a program you don't like. As Opie correctly points out, there's a big difference between "I'm offended" and "I'm offended and no one should be allowed to listen to him". I don't abide by that kind of censorship.
I also find such pushes hypocritical on the part of the protestors. These are often the same people who want government out of our lives or people who don't want corporations controlling us. It seems that when conservatives get offended (typically the small government type), they want the government to step in and do something about it; and when liberals get offended (typically the anti-corporate type), they want corporations to step in and do something about it (or step out and thus do something about it). But since this stupid post is about the latter, I'll conclude with this: You can't resent attempts by corporations to control our lives while simultaneously wielding them to control the media content we're exposed to.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE? Like it or not Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to say what he did on the radio in AMERICA!
[Re:] Rush Limbaugh - Let me dumb it down for some of you. I don't want the GOVERNMENT or ADVERTISERS to control what I listen to on the radio
A lot of you dopes are confused by 'I'm offended' AND 'I'm offended and NO ONE should be allowed to listen to him' THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE
A common response to the first sentiment is (and I'll quote an actual comment): "Of course he has the right [to say what he did]. And thousands of people have the right to say, 'You're an ass, we won't do business with your advertisers.'" I take issue with that.
What do advertisers have to do with a radio program, television show, magazine article, movie, etc. in terms of those shows content? Nothing...so I don't get the association. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I've never viewed any advertising for any show I've ever watched as somehow connected to the show I'm watching and/or listening to. And I resent the people who insist on making this conflation and then taking their trumped up connection to now threaten advertisers with boycotts and other forms of social shaming to further their agendas. And of course, because of these stupid-ass people, the advertisers now have to act like they are in fact part of the shows and programs upon which they advertise. They'll announce the cessation of their partnerships with bullshit lines like, "Our company no longer wishes to be associated with such&such a show" or mentioning something about their company's "image" and/or "reputation". Really? Neither assertion makes sense to me from the point of view of an advertiser. I can only see such points coming about because of stupid assholes conflating advertising with the shows they advertise on.
The point of advertising is to sell your wares and advertising is more effective on platforms which speak to the most people. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I know a lot of people do...millions in fact (or not...maybe). Why would you not want to be associated with that? How is walking away from millions of potential customers a rational business decision? It's not even rational to take a boycott threat seriously. While there have been effective boycotts, they're notable for being small in number. The image and reputation arguments are also invalid. How is Honda's or Toyota's image and/or reputation served by Family Guy? How does Survivor hold up the reputation of Doritos? When you think of Desperate Housewives, does Pepsi come to mind? Who's actually making these associations between what is being advertised and the shows they're watching these ads on? And I don't want to hear absent these associations, bullshit ideas like sex toys would be advertised during children's shows because that wouldn't happen and not because of broadcasters forbidding it but because of demographics. A kid watching the Cartoon Express (I'm old) is not going to be contributing to dildo sales so sex toy vendors aren't going to be dropping their advertising dollars on such programming.
Advertising is a necessary evil and will continue to be so for as long as corporations exist that have products to sell and services to offer. They need to remind you constantly of their existence or they will go away. There's a story I remember (but can't find proof of online...) about a soap company that was so successful that the owner deemed advertising of its product an unnecessary expense so he stopped...and business promptly plummeted. Out of sight, out of mind. His rivals did not stop advertising so they got his business (not that this does not happen). My point is that I don't want to give advertisers power over content decisions on the programs which they advertise: it's not their place. Their decision to advertise should only be based on either total readership/listenership/viewership or the demographics of that audience or both, not over what is being written/said/shown because the latter is not relevant to the former. But that's not the way it works because of the bullying tactics employed by people who don't grasp the concept of free speech.
Simply put, if you don't like what is being said...don't listen to it. No one is forcing you to read an article/listen to a show/watch a program you don't like. As Opie correctly points out, there's a big difference between "I'm offended" and "I'm offended and no one should be allowed to listen to him". I don't abide by that kind of censorship.
I also find such pushes hypocritical on the part of the protestors. These are often the same people who want government out of our lives or people who don't want corporations controlling us. It seems that when conservatives get offended (typically the small government type), they want the government to step in and do something about it; and when liberals get offended (typically the anti-corporate type), they want corporations to step in and do something about it (or step out and thus do something about it). But since this stupid post is about the latter, I'll conclude with this: You can't resent attempts by corporations to control our lives while simultaneously wielding them to control the media content we're exposed to.