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.....