210 Volts AC - Satire, Commentary, Insanity

Ethereal Standard Time?

2009-05-31T02:43:00.002-06:00

I watched Ghostbusters II this evening, and found myself bothered by a couple of typical movie conventions that came up in the course of the film.

First, the plot centers around a cosmic plot that involves the coming of the new year.
Let's get this straight right now: New Year's Day represents exactly one thing in a cosmic sense - that the earth has yet again reached an arbitrarily chosen point in the its orbit around the sun. And here's the funny thing about arbitrarily chosen things: Their very nature as arbitrarily chosen precludes the possibility of them having some sort of deeper significance, no matter how hungover you are.

What's even more galling about it is the concept that anything from the ethereal plain or the religious afterlife would give a flying rat's ass about the new year. Presumably, these things which harness and use powers we can't begin to comprehend aren't bound by humanity's arbitrarily designated descriptions of time. Hell, I'm not bound by the dates in my appointment book, and I'm not even some sort of psychic, much less a demigod, angel, or other transcendental creature.

The second of convention that really gets me is that everything relies on local time in the movie. For instance, the antagonist in the movie is able to reincarnate himself at the beginning of the year. But apparently the entire ethereal plain is bound to Eastern Standard Time, because it's not like it was 12:01 on January 1st in Tokyo 13 hours before it was in New York City.

So, what the hell? The antagonist is a 17th Century Moldovan tyrant whose spirit has been stored in a painting and is planning to reincarnate himself via a psychomagnotheric plasm. I mean, if he's from Moldova, why is he stuck on Eastern Standard Time? Why not Moldovan Standard Time? Why not use a little bit of that resurrection power from the slime to do it at any damn time that pleases you? Is resurrection via slime like an international flight? If you miss it are you that screwed? (I guess missing the international flight is still worse. At least if you miss the resurrection you're just dead, but missing a flight back home means that you'll have to deal with airline personnel.)

Oh, and on the subject of time, was I the only one who got pissed off in American Treasure when they did the whole shadow casting on a spot at a certain time thing? It would only work for like a week out of the year, courtesy of the earth's 23 degree tilt on its axis. Lazy bastard writers fit in the daylight savings workaround, but they never managed to explain that one.

Anyway, I figured I'd share this with you in yet another example of my Knowledge Ruins Everything Series of Blog Posts.

Also, I guess that I should give fair warning that I will be offering free throat punches to anyone who decides to ask why it is I'm completely comfortable with slime that can make the Statue of Liberty walk or a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, but clearly really pissed off about such trifling matters as time zones. That's for me to know and you to never ask.

George W. Bush for MLB Commissioner

2009-03-31T15:40:00.008-06:00

I expect every single one of you to get behind this campaign. Here's why:

It's the best thing for the players:
His steroid reform will be just as effective as his entitlement and immigration reforms were.

It's the best thing for the owners:
If he increases the league's budget by even 1% of what increased the federal budget, they'll be happy campers.

It's the best thing for baseball:
He can't be worse than Bud Selig and he's bound to be more entertaining.

It's the best thing for this nation:
Banished Roid Rage Players
+ War On Terror
= Win

With thanks to McCoy for the inspiration.

Love Letter

2009-02-26T11:23:00.007-07:00

My, dear, sweet, intoxicating lady:

I write you today to express my affection. (And to beg for sex, but we'll get to that later.)

I have struggled to find words to tell you how I feel.

I began by thinking that I could compare your beauty to that of the stars. They are, like you, celestial gifts that look over us all, inspiring lovers and poets to new heights of hyperbole when describing their aesthetic perfection. Unfortunately, it is also true that the words "enormous" and "gaseous" describe stars, and in my experience you have not enjoyed being called either. God knows I wouldn't want you going supernova on my ass, so I chose to pass on this particular comparison.

I wondered if a rose might serve as an adequate basis for comparison. How could something so beautiful, something that reminds us of the most valiant and valorous in the human spirit, ever fail to do you justice? Sadly, I realized that any man may have a rose simply by taking it. I then remembered that last time I accused you of having this property, you tried to stab me in the face. I, thus, sought a different metaphor.

I thought that perhaps Helen, she of such beauty that nations moved to war, could serve my purposes. What greater tribute could I make than to hold you up to the pedestal of history and compare your beauty to that of a woman who made even the gods feel insecure? Apparently, any tribute would be finer, as you wouldn't talk to me for two weeks after discovering my point-by-point comparison between you and Angelina Jolie. I still can't understand why you were so upset. You came in ahead by two points, after all.

Despairing, I decided that any sort of comparative venture might prove to be a failure. At this point, I had a true epiphany: Like a unique snowflake, you are one of a kind. Like an abstract painting, a description of your beauty cannot be marshaled by such simple devices as similes or metaphors. Like the river a man tries to cross twice, you are never the same. To compare you to anything is a futile venture. And as experience has taught, it also invokes your wrath.

Now, as I wallow in irony and horseshit in equal parts, I hope that I have appropriately set the mood to subtly insert the most devious of innuendos. I wish to say just enough to whet your appetite, while appearing to all the world (and your protective father, in particular) to be extolling your beauty. So, my lady, ponder carefully the various meanings of my entreaty. It draws upon eons of repressed attraction, the countless longings of time's endless supply of lonely souls, and a wit that the Bard himself would envy.

Please, my darling: I want to do you.

See? Barely noticeable. The daft old man will never catch on.

My darling, my love for you is a never-ending river of inappropriate metaphors, absurd similes, and remarkably bad imagery. If there is any truer definition of love, I know it not.

Yours, always and forever, so long as you put out,
-tj

Four Reasons Obama is Still Popular

2009-02-25T10:56:00.003-07:00

Via Twitter, I found this post on four reasons why President Obama is still popular with the public. In short, they are:

1. Effective Speeches
2. Continued campaigning
3. Appealing to the intellect of the American people
4. Optimism

First, I'll point out that my list of reasons President Obama is still popular reads like this:

1. ABC
2. CBS
3. CNN
4. NBC

Second, I'd like to call bullshit on numbers three and four.

The man is consistently telling us that this nation will go to hell in a hand basket if we don't pass whatever ridiculous spending bill he wants next, and that he will cut the deficit in half after spending 1.5 trillion dollars.

(A) That's not optimism.
(B) That appeals to people's fears, not their intellects.
(C) My intellect leads me to feel repulsed by the claim that you can cut the deficit by increasing spending by 1.5 trillion dollars. That's kind of like appeal, right?

In fairness to the author, I will point out that the post was off of a marketing blog and is more interested in examining the leadership practices than the political or policy issues at hand.

In fairness to me, I'd like to point out that I vomited when I read it, anyway.

Adwords Fail

2009-02-21T18:23:00.002-07:00

Five Reasons We Should Reconsider This Whole Democracy Idea

2009-02-07T11:22:00.009-07:00

1. This woman can legally vote:

2. This man can legally vote:

3. Some voters need to be told not to drink this stuff:

4. This man was governor of Illinois:

5. These men have served as President of the United States:

Any questions?

Life Lessons

2009-01-23T08:42:00.010-07:00

From the Denver Post:

Wonder if Wilt Chamberlain ever felt bad about putting up 100 points
against the Knicks in 1962?

A Texas high school girls basketball team on the winning end of a 100-0 game has a case of blowout remorse. Officials from The Covenant School, a private Christian school in Dallas, are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the winning margin.

Thursday on the school's website, the head of the school, Kyle Queal, said, "It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened." He went on to say that Covenant has made "a formal request to forfeit the game recognizing that a victory without honor is a great loss."

Last week, Covenant defeated Dallas Academy 100-0. Dallas Academy has eight girls on its team. It is winless over the last four seasons.

A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers — even in the fourth quarter.

Queal said the game "does not reflect a Christ-like and honorable approach to competition. We humbly apologize for our actions and seek the forgiveness of Dallas Academy, TAPPS and our community."

The Dallas Academy has accepted the apology and said it is excited about some of the attention it is receiving from the loss, including an invitation from Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to see an NBA game from his suite.

Ouch.

As if a 100 point loss wasn't bad enough, now these girls are being taught life lessons that can only be a disservice to them:

1. If you lose badly enough, people will feel bad for you and reward your poor performance.

Just ask the French. They got bailed out of two world wars this way.

There is no excuse to teach a young person this lesson. It transfers all too easily from basketball to real life. "Maybe just being an alcoholic won't be enough. But if I manage to become an alcholic, prostitute, single mother, drug addict, and cripple all in one week... then, someone will coddle me! I'm going to need a feather boa, fishnet stockings, some hypodermic needles, a bottle of vodka, a baseball bat, and someone who is willing to use all of them on me."

Not only are they beign showered with pity, these girls are getting their first win in four years! Why? Because they managed to elevate losing to a new low. Consider this analogy involving real-life consequences, and tell me which one doesn't fit:

A. You fail at work: you get fired.

B. You fail at love: you get dumped.

C. You fail to follow traffic laws: you get a ticket.

D. You fail to drink responsibly: you puke.

E. You fail to play offense, defense, or anything resembling basketball: you win by forfeit and get to go to a Mavs game in the owner's suite.

If you said "E," congratulations! You live on Planet Earth with the rest of us.

2. None of this was their fault.

They lost. 100-0. One hundred. To zero. In other words, during the course of the game, they never even managed to get off a single good shot. They never managed to draw a foul and then sink a single free throw. They never once drove to the hoop to make a lay-up. They never so much as accomplished a single thing that a basketball player should. Admittedly, it was probably excessive for the winners to be draining threes in the 4th quarter. But to attribute the "shame and embarassment" of this debacle only to the winning team is an insult to athletics, the concept of competition, and anyone who has ever been better at something than someone else.

Imagine how simple minimizing this pathetic performance could have been. What if the girls from Dallas Academy (henceforth refered to as the "losers") had done nothing more than thrown a few hard fouls when Covenant (henceforth refered to as the "winners") kept shooting threes? I'll bet you after a couple of those winners would have thought long and hard before shooting from outside the arc again.

3. People paying attention to you as a result of your failures is good.

The Academy is apparently "excited" about this attention. Insanity, I say!

I will grant that in Hollywood, they say that there's no such thing as bad press. That's because their job is to be famous. Thus, being by being in the news, Hollywood celebrities are doing their jobs, regardless of the personality flaw, emotional outburst, or criminal act that resulted in the coverage.

A school, in the meantime, shouldn't be in the news for fostering such ineptitude that its players are incapable of winning even once in four years, then capping such an extraordinary under-achievement with a 100-0 loss. You know what this tells me about Dallas Academy? They don't care about winning. As I've mentioned, this isn't the kind of thing I want children taught. In fact, this type of lesson is the very reason a lot of kids are removed from public schools in the first place.

So, let's do these girls a favor. Instead of giving them hugs and kisses and a fake victory and telling them that everyone thinks they're special, let's show them some real love and tell them the four lessons they should have learned:

1. You lost by a very wide margin. You should have performed better.

2. You do not have to like that this is the case. In fact, you should not like that this is the case.

3. The solution to the problem of feeling bad about losing is to improve to the point that you win. Winners don't have to feel bad because they didn't lose.

4. Unless, of course, they rout an inferior team, at which point society will demand they apologize for it. So, if you're gonna stomp 'em, stop at about a 75 point margin. 60 if you really want to be safe.

Austin Expenses

2009-01-22T17:33:00.002-07:00

My check card statement tells the tale of my weekend in Austin with a far greater reliability than my memory:

BAR – Paid for drinks

BAR – Paid for drinks

BAR – Paid for drinks

FAST FOOD – While caloric requirements have been met and surpassed by beer, I believe some sort of nourishment from another source is well advised.

BAR – Paid for drinks. I hope I was buying rounds at this one because otherwise this number says something bad about my consumption of alcohol.

BAR – Paid for drinks.

MINI GOLF – Awesome.

BAR – Paid for drinks, courtesy of a mini-golf bet. Weak.

BAR – Paid for drinks.

BAR – Drinks.

BAR – I cannot imagine that my signature was legible at this point.

BAR – Drinks.

BAR – You guessed it: drinks. And apparently peanuts. Who knew bars charged for those?

BAR – Drinks.

BAR – Drinks. I must be on charming bastard when I’m drinking, because this charge would be for “bail” otherwise.

BAR – Drrins. Not a typo. Completely incapable of polite speech at this point. Apparently bank statements reflects that kind of thing.

BAR – Drinks.

BAR – Drinks, and apparently a rather large bribe to the bartender for making the drinks strong. Or for wearing a low-cut top. Likely the latter. OK – definitely the latter.

BAR – I think my liver has cut its losses and fled town.

BAR – This one was at the airport. Gotta survive the flight home somehow, and it's too late to be responsible three days ago.

REHAB – Touché, substance abuse counselors. Touché.

In Flight Announcements

2009-01-15T23:31:00.003-07:00

Today, as I flew from Denver to Austin, I was forced to listen to each of the announcements by the flight crew. I'd really rather they stop blowing smoke up our asses and start telling us the truth.

PRE-FLIGHT SAFETY BRIEFING:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to flight 465 with service from Denver to Austin. Typically, at this point in the flight we'd be going through a safety briefing. Earlier today, however, there was an unfortunate incident involving another plane making a 'rough landing' in the Hudson River. Statistically speaking, it's more likely that lightning will strike the plane twice than that we'll crash, er... land roughly. As a consequence, we'll be skipping the safety briefing today.

DRINK SERVICE:

Yes, uh, good afternoon, folks, we're going to be coming through the aisle in a few minutes, providing you with beverages, then blocking your path to the lavatory.

IN-FLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to let you know that we'll be showing some material on the monitors here in the passenger cabin. Beforehand, we'll be passing out a form in which you acknowledge that you are comfortable waiving your 8th Amendment rights.

LANDING:

Folks, we'll be landing in Austin in a few minutes. The local time is about 10:40 p.m. We'd like to thank you for flying with our airline. We know you have other choices, and we are always astonished that you will tolerate the increasingly limited space, service, and reliability we offer. In particular, your willingness to subsidize and protect our industry comes as a greater shock after each time we charge you for such an unreasonably burdensome service as being able to bring your luggage with you. Thank you for forcing yourself to settle for less by electing officials who will provide us with industry subsidies and protections.

IN THE EVENT OF A "ROUGH LANDING"

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to be landing a bit early this evening. Unfortunately, we'll be a little bit farther from the terminal than we'd originally planned. Instead of Gate B-12 at La Guardia, we'll be setting down in the Hudson River. Those of you who paid us to check bags are now certainly regretting the extra expense, and we'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that this is a non-refundable charge. Now, if you'll please assume brace positions...

Who Are You, You Bastard?

2008-12-14T22:40:00.008-07:00

I want to extend my most sincere thanks to whomever decided that ruining classic Who songs by using them as CSI themes was a great idea.

Was it was someone trying to make CSI into a distinctive brand? After all, nothing says "procedural crime drama" like British rock. This, coupled with the extraordinary proliferation of the genre makes it clear why the Beatles are so popular.

Maybe it was a some sound editor who thought: "Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who? It's perfect for this whodunit show! Ha ha ha, I'm so clever." Well, way to go, Cassandra - you didn't see this one turning into a franchise, did you? What the hell does "Baba O'Reilly" have to do with forensic science? The same thing you and common fucking decency have in common: Nothing.

Or what about a producer who really enjoys The Who and thought it would be a great way to pay homage to them by raping not one, not two, but three of their songs for his own gain? If this is the way he shows his appreciation for those he loves, I don't want to know a damn thing about his last Mother's Day gift.

The possibility exists that it was a demand from one of the actors in the show. Of course, I guess that in a format that doesn't require any acting ability outside of being able to read a script, the cast are akin to expendable cogs. I imagine that CBS simply shoots the actors who make demands and replaces them with waiters who can now truthfully say that they are actors.

Lastly, it seems popular to blame George W. Bush for problems, so I'll put his name out there. I think choosing TV theme songs falls under the broad Article II grant of "executive powers," much like filling vacancies in the Senate, nominating cabinet members, or breaking into the Watergate Hotel.

Whoever you are, you bastard, I wish a pox upon your house. Or at the very least, herpes for your wife.

Crime and Punishment

2008-11-16T21:44:00.002-07:00

A brief time-line of civilization's punishments for criminals:

2000 BC - 500 BC
You, your family, and your dog are brutally killed for just about any offense.

500 BC - 1500 AD
Now, only you are brutally killed for just about any offense.

1500 AD - 1800 AD
You are still killed, but now humanely and only for the most severe offenses.

1900 AD - 1970 AD
You are imprisoned for the rest of your life for committing the most severe of offenses, or for possessing marijuana.

1970 AD - Present
You are elected to the Senate.

Confession of a Guilt-Free Mind

2008-10-12T22:06:00.003-06:00

In my previous post, I referred to myself as "a humble servant of truth."

At no time should the word "humble" have been used to describe me.

This is a bold-faced lie.

I am not sorry.

Confession of a Guilty Mind

2008-10-12T21:47:00.003-06:00

As a humble servant of truth, I must make this confession. In my post on protests at the DNC, I wrote the following:

We all know war is bad. That's why it's called "war" instead of "happiness." But people keep protesting it and somehow it keeps on happening. My theory is that this is because we keep saying that "War is bad." This is negative reinforcement. What we really need is some positive reinforcement. Let's turn to the other side of the obvious coin and say "Peace is good." The power of positive reinforcement will surely overcome the evils of the world.

This is not correct. Saying that "war is bad" does not constitute negative reinforcement in classical conditioning. Rather, it is called punishment. Punishment inflicts some sort of undesirable consequence upon an agent for engaging in an undesirable behavior.

Negative reinforcement rewards someone for not doing an undesirable behavior. Thus, if we look at peace as simply the absence of open, armed conflict between nations, by saying that "peace is good," we are, in fact, engaging in negative reinforcement.

This analysis, of course, is dependent upon three rather shaky assumptions:

1. Being told that "war is bad" is undesirable to those who wage war. Protesters often seem to believe that "Neo-cons" and "chicken-hawks" would savor nothing more than frequent opportunities to spill blood. How they then conclude that being told that war is not good would punish said "warmongers" puzzles me.

2. Being told that "peace is good" is desirable to those who wage war. If it's a war for peace, doesn't it seem that they already accept this? Is it really desirable to be told what you already know?

3. Defining peace as simply the absence of conflict is not specious. See: Chamberalin, Neville; Appeasement; Czechoslovakia.

Such is the result of a journalism major attempting to make jokes about psychology. My apologies are extended to all, Pavlov in particular.

For the Record

2008-09-10T16:43:00.003-06:00

Today was all the hoopla about the particle accelerator. I just want to go on the record predicting that a movie featuring a particle accelerator as part of the plot will come out of Hollywood in the next year and a half.

A Dialog Concerning Things That Go Bump in The Night

2008-09-08T21:44:00.011-06:00

[Ed stirs in bed, waking Mary.]

ED: What was that!?

MARY: What is it, honey?

ED: I thought I heard something.

THIRD VOICE: You heard nothing.

ED: Oh, perfect! Back to bed then.

MARY: Didn't you hear that?

ED: Hear what?

MARY: That voice.

ED: Yes. But he said I heard nothing and put my concerns to rest. I intend to follow their lead.

MARY: But you heard him! He's something!

ED: Conceded. But that was after I thought I heard a noise that could indicate some sort of malfeasance afoot. The voice was dissimilar enough to assure me that it wasn't the same noise I thought I heard, so I'm quite happy to return to sleep if you'll let me, dear.

MARY: But couldn't he have been what you heard in the first place?

ED: Based on the dissimilarity of the sounds, I doubt it. Particularly given that I have now been assured that I did not, in fact, hear a first noise. The voice could hardly be responsible for something that didn't happen.

MARY: What if he was what you heard in the first place? Might not the same thing be responsible for two sounds?

ED: You seem to keep forgetting that I don't believe the first sound existed. The question hardly seems relevant when I will only admit to hearing one sound. However, if it will set your mind at ease, I speak for the moment as if I had heard a noise before the voice. In that case, I don't believe that there is any compelling reason for you to believe that the two noises are connected.

MARY: You heard one noise, then the voice seconds later.

ED: If I were to sneeze right now and the neighbors' house exploded moments later, would you accuse me of blowing up the neighbors' house?

MARY: Hardly! But -

ED: They operate on the same principal, darling.

MARY: But surely the two being so close together in space and time must make some difference.

ED: So if I were to sneeze in the neighbors' house, I would then be responsible for the ensuing explosion?

MARY: No. But there's a chance you could have if your sneeze somehow caused a spark due to static electricity which subsequently ignited natural gas that had rather unfortunately accumulated in the house as a result of some other happenstance.

ED: I've never said the two can't be related, simply that there is no compelling reason to believe that they are. I believe that once you see this, you will sleep soundly, aware that the fear that seems to be bothering you is baseless.

MARY: So you are of the opinion that the two noises are not connected?

ED: I am of the opinion that there was only one noise. I had only conceded to the existence of the first noise in an attempt to persuade you to stop worrying.

MARY: It would seem to me that what you have presented is hardly a case to stop worrying. There is little compelling reason to accept a view other than the view that the sounds are connected. It comes from the axiom that the simplest theory is most likely correct. What is simpler: two unusual things creating one unusual noise each or one unusual thing creating two unusual noises?

ED: The question hardly seems relevant, given that I have not admitted to hearing a first noise.

MARY: But you thought you did.

ED: Indeed. It was a misperception. Frankly, I think the simplest theory at this point would be that the second noise was also a result of a misperception on my part.

MARY: In that case, my only worry would be for your hearing. However, I, too, heard the voice. Is it simpler to say that you and I had identical misperceptions or that we had identical correct perceptions?

ED: Likely the latter.

MARY: Then the second voice was real!

ED: You've showed very little. I had conceded to this. It was, in fact, one of the premises that drove me to conclude I had not heard a first noise.

MARY: But how can you trust it?

ED: You heard the same thing I did, and we've agreed that it's more likely we both accurately perceived it than misperceived.

MARY: No! How can you trust what it said? It can't possibly know what you did or did not hear.

ED: I agree that it couldn't be privy to my inner mental states. However, it could be aware of the environment and aware that the conditions required for me to hear something were not met.

MARY: In other words, it heard nothing, so you couldn't have heard something?

ED: Exactly. So long as we are using "hear" as a technical term that denotes the ability to detect sound waves.

MARY: But what if it's lying?

ED: Why would it do that?

MARY: If it created the first noise and wanted to hide its presence.

ED: While I have maintained that there is was only one noise, you have held that there were two, and that they were created by the same thing. If I accept, again, that there were two noises, it hardly seems to me that that object, if its goal were to be clandestine, would create a second noise. As such, the precepts of your theory leave me unconcerned. They should leave you in a similar state.

MARY: But, perhaps by your theory you should be concerned. You believe the second noise - or the only noise in your theory - was caused by something that can both speak and hear?

ED: Yes.

MARY: And isn't it a bit unusual for something that can speak and hear - and isn't us - to be in this room?

ED: Yes.

MARY: Given that unusual circumstance, shouldn't you be concerned?

ED: Indeed.

MARY: Well, aren't you going to get concerned?

ED: I am now.

MARY: You don't seem to be.

ED: I said I am. Does that not lend itself to the perception that I am, in fact, concerned?

MARY: I expected more of a show of concern.

ED: More of a show than an explicit admission?

MARY: Tension in your voice, or springing to your feet, or... or....

ED: So, you don't believe that I am concerned if I am not acting in those ways, my explicit admission to the contrary?

MARY: Might not one lie about being concerned?

ED: Might not one behave in those ways without being concerned?

MARY: Touché.

ED: Mary, I am concerned. But I am also tired. Let us go to sleep and worry tomorrow about whatever unusual thing in our room can speak and hear.

MARY: And if it means us harm?

ED: It had ample opportunity while we spoke. If it meant us harm, we would be harmed by now. Go to sleep, my love.

[They kiss goodnight.]

ED: Goodnight.

MARY: Goodnight.

THIRD VOICE: Goodnight.

On Shit Talk

2008-09-01T22:17:00.006-06:00

I received the following e-mail in one of my fantasy football leagues:

We believe this is a new era in the fantasy football league. Not only do the Barbie Dream Drafters know good football, but this is the year the dudes are gonna be taught what it's like to be overpowered and outsmarted by these intelligent feminine football masterminds! Saddle up folks Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible!

I'd like to address this supposed "shit talking" on a point-by-point basis here, as I believe shit talk is woefully lacking in the text I just presented:

1. We believe this is a new era in the fantasy football league.

This is a factual statement. There are new players and new rules, thus engendering a new era. Your statement as such cannot be considered shit talk as the only factual statements that can be considered shit talk are those that point out the ways in which your team is considerably better than another team.

Consider:
"My team is called Barbie Dream Draft. Ha ha ha." Not shit talk.

"Your starting quarterback just tore his hamstring. Ha ha ha." Definitely shit talk.

2. Not only do the Barbie Dream Drafters know good football

Doubtful. You drafted Brett Favre in the Fourth round. (See previous statement on factual statements being acceptable as shit talk.)

To stay on point, however, this statement lacks status as shit talk because it is a normative evaluation of your football knowledge rather than a comparative statement about your knowledge and that of your opponent. To be shit talk you would have to make it very clear that your normative evaluation of the quality being discussed somehow makes you better than your opponent.

Consider:
"We know good football." Not shit talk.

"My expansive football knowledge dwarfs the pathetic handful of factoids you cling to as your hope for success." Definitely shit talk.

3. but this is the year

This transition when coupled with the statement that follows it does not fulfill the requirements set forth in point number two to create shit talk. The word "but" coupled with the language "not only" functions essentially as the word "and" would, thus creating two unrelated statements. To properly link these two statements in such a way to form shit talk, they should be linked causally.

Consider:
"We know good football and we are gonna teach you blah blah blah." Not shit talk.

"We know good football, so come week six when you're trying to figure out which of your third-stringers to start in place of your injury-prone starter, we'll be trying to figure out which of our four top-performers to bench because we have such a glut of talent." Definitely shit talk.

4. the dudes are gonna be taught what it's like to be overpowered and outsmarted by these intelligent feminine football masterminds!

This is the closest the e-mail ever comes to shit talk. However, its great flaw is that rests on the assumption that women are worse at fantasy football than men. This isn't a problem because it's untrue. (I'm guessing that it's usually true, in fact.) It's a problem because accepting this assumption causes the shit talker to take the lowest pedestal from which to shit talk. One should always talk shit from the highest position, as the whole point of shit talking is to remind your opponents that you are better than they are.

Consider:
"I know you think of me as your inferior, but the season's results will force you to accept that I am not." Not shit talk.

"All the people of the world will be forced to take notice of my greatness because it will be drawn in contrast to my opponents' inferiority at a level of comparison last experienced when God said 'let there be light.'" Definitely shit talk.

5. Saddle up folks Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible!

An amazing adventure in a pink convertible hardly seems like a threat. In fact, it sounds like the plot of a sleazy movie. When making threats, aim for a humiliating reminder of the fact that you are better than your opponent.

Consider:
"Prepare for an amazing adventure in our pink Barbie convertible." Not shit talk.

"When I win, you'll be scrubbing my pink convertible with your tongue just to get a taste of what it's like to be as amazing as I am." Definitely shit talk.

If you were wondering, I sent this friendly primer on shit talking to the Barbie Dream Drafters along with this last warning:

"If you think I tore that e-mail to pieces, wait until I face your fantasy team." Definitely shit talk.

A Hard Day's Night

2008-07-12T18:31:00.003-06:00

Consider the following, which is a good reconstruction of what I think through the course of a given night at my job working security for a retail store:

18:06
The tedium grows with every minute. What little energy can be diverted from the fanatical self-hatred that is a result of volunteering for this assignment must be used in a vain effort to stay awake. I take solace in the fact that this will later pay for beer. (Every 13 minutes is a beer on $2 pint night.)

18:11
Still no improvement.

18:19
Have earned one beer since beginning log.

18:24-18:25
Watched cursor blink for one minute. 56 blinks. 728 blinks = one beer.

18:40
Discussed with dock guys whether or not it is funny when numerous customers arrive to pick up merchandise at the same time. Their consensus: not funny. I disagree. Tomorrow's topic agreed upon: practical applications of existentialist thought in contemporary retail sales.

18:50
Just saw a homely girl in fragrances. Gross.

19:10
Have been watching customers for the last 20 minutes. No one stole. What assholes.

19:55
I was going to buy a rice krispies treat, but the bookstore was out. They did have a really cool coloring book, though, so the trip wasn't a total loss.

20:07
Started to observe a woman because she was carrying a wal-mart bag. Saw she had a mullet so stopped surveilling; figured it was her purse.

20:48
Banged knee on desk. it hurt like hell, but it was a little reassuring to know that i can still feel feelings.

20:55:32
In love!

20:55:38
Out of love. Should have left the camera unfocused.

21:11
Almost done for the day, but retirement still out of reach.

Hail to the Chief

2008-06-28T19:21:00.002-06:00

I’d like you, before you read any further, to concede that politics is really just a grand show for our amusement. Given that, we should choose the President most likely to entertain us. I’ve thought long and hard about who we ought to choose as the star of this show we call “popular sovereignty,” and I’ve come to the conclusion that it would have to be Bob Dylan. The man is the elder statesman of rock ‘n roll and is, thus, eminently qualified to run the country.

Here’s how I picture one small moment during President Dylan’s first term:

GOVERNOR: I need highway money.

PRESIDENT DYLAN: How many roads must a man walk down?

GOVERNOR: We don’t need roads for walking. We need them to drive, and ours are in atrocious condition. Consider –

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Positively 4^th Street?

GOVERNOR: No. Just plain old 4^th Street. You almost fall into the sewers just driving along it! People could get –

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Subterranean Homesick Blues?

GOVERNOR: No. Infectious disease is what I was thinking of. Could you put the guitar down and discuss this with me seriously for a moment, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Certainly. But it’s not me you need to talk to. You need to talk to the appropriations committee. They decide who gets money. Not the President.

GOVERNOR: Conceded. But the money always gets –

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Tangled up in blue?

GOVERNOR: No! In red tape! I didn’t come to literally ask you for money. I just want you to get the ball rolling.

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Like a Rolling Stone?

GOVERNOR: No, not like a rolling stone. Like a bunch of highway money.

PRESIDENT DYLAN: I thought we were done with the highway issue. I told you, you need to speak to the appropriations committee.

GOVERNOR: Well, if it’s alright I’d like the issue of –

PRESIDENT DYLAN: Highway 61 Revisited?

GOVERNOR: No, dammit! I just want to talk with a sane person.

PRESIDENT DYLAN: It’s been a long time since the American people made one of those President.

Things I Would Change About Sports if I Were God

2008-06-02T22:10:00.002-06:00

1. After rule changes that make the sport more interesting, NASCAR drivers would voluntarily accept the head restraint system that could have saved Dale Earnhardt’s life. These changes would also make armor plating and bullet-proof vests very popular.

2. Useless statistics would be punishable by lightning strike. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but someday when you least expect it, you’re going to fry for telling me that Tom Glavine’s ERA against switch-hitting-Cubs in the 7^th inning of home games played on the third Tuesday of evenly numbered months is 0.00.

3. God can’t interfere with free will, so I wouldn’t be able to prevent the Steinbrenners from buying one World Series after another, but I could give them gonorrhea.

4. Despite all the prayers (and my omnipotence), I still wouldn’t be able to help the Detroit Lions.

5. No more erectile dysfunction commercials during sports. Man watches football to be reminded of his greatness, not his impotence.

6. Europeans would realize that, despite its status as the world’s most popular sport, soccer doesn’t fare well in

America

for the same reasons hygiene and victory are popular here.

7. It should be perfectly acceptable for another player to bat in place of an American League pitcher, so long as that pitcher does not return the mound in the next inning.

8. No more golf on the major networks. Ever. For any reason.

9. To hell with the education system. Let’s spend tax dollars on something that actually fulfills its stated purpose: ESPN.

10. To insure that Native Americans aren’t only race whose image is hijacked and stereotyped for use as sports mascots, the Yankees should be required to move and change their name to the Brooklyn Jews.

Protests I'd Like to See at the DNC

2008-05-16T23:46:00.003-06:00

Everybody wants to see a particular form of protest when the Democratic National Convention comes to Denver. A group called "Recreate '68" wants to relive the peace, love, and rock 'n roll of the 1968 Convention. (Apparently they have confused Woodstock with the 1968 convention.) Rush Limbaugh is dreaming of riots. I have my own wishes for particular protests:

A Protest by Recreate (18)68
Essentially, this group would be Amish people parading down the streets in their buggies. They would be particularly easy to force to disperse, as gas masks didn't exist in 1868 and tear gas burns ever so badly.

A Protest Against Increasing the Capital Gains Tax
The only problem with this plan is that people who are against the capital gains tax have jobs are are, thus, not able to protest.

A Protest Against the 17th Amendment
Zimbabwe has representation in Washington, but the State of Colorado does not. No punchline here. Just tears.

A Protest Against Protesting
I always thought this would be really cool: Get a bunch of signs and stupid slogans and act offended that people have the gall to protest. If some other protester were to ask if it was a bit ironic to be protesting against protests, I would answer, "Isn't your face a bit ironic? Oooh - I burned you like a flag!"

A Protest in Favor of Peace
We all know war is bad. That's why it's called "war" instead of "happiness." But people keep protesting it and somehow it keeps on happening. My theory is that this is because we keep saying that "War is bad." This is negative reinforcement. What we really need is some positive reinforcement. Let's turn to the other side of the obvious coin and say "Peace is good." The power of positive reinforcement will surely overcome the evils of the world.

Zombies Protesting for Any Reason
Needless to say, zombies would liven up the proceedings at almost any convention. The best part would be to watch a zombie expecting a nice warm meal become visibly disappointed when it sinks its teeth into Hillary Clinton's frigid posterior.

A Lady Doth Protesting Too Much
Bonus points if she does so in iambic pentameter.

A Protest in Favor of Eating Factory Farmed Animals
People are always complaining about how miserable animals in factory farms are. Why not put them out of their misery and put them onto my dinner table? It's win-win!

A Protest in Favor of Global Warming
Such a protest is just as effective as a protest against global warming, in that neither accomplishes shit.

Sadly, I think we shall be forced to watch a bunch of burnouts try to tell the world that they're sick of people not listening to them. Or some crap like that. God knows I won't be listening.

The BIG Question

2008-04-11T23:13:00.010-06:00

Often, it is challenging for men to try to gauge what a given woman might be interested in discussing. As an added misfortune, many icebreakers prove to be helpful for a second, but are followed only by stilted conversation as the man tries to figure out what the woman would like to discuss. If, through use of an icebreaker a man could actually divine what a woman wanted to hear, he would be immeasurably benefited.

It was with this in mind that I began to consider the use of a projective psychological test. In such a test, the subject is provided with a vague stimulus. The response the subject gives to such a stimulus can provide great insight into her psyche. (The most famous of these is probably the Rorschach Ink Blot test.) For the benefit of men everywhere, I decided to design a projective test suitable for use in the cocktail party setting.

Now, after years of tireless research, I have perfected that test. It uses only a single question, so it is quick to administer. It appears to be simply an innocuous ice breaker, so there is little chance of generating invalid results. There is only one scale, so even the least skilled users of the test can interpret it fairly easily. Best of all, unlike personality tests that are based upon empirical research and psychological theories, there is no ethical prohibition against using the test as a means of advancing your own interests at cost to the person to whom you administer the test.

I call this test Wihera's Bellwether for Informal Gatherings Question. (The BIG Question for short.)

Administration is simple: Ask the BIG question, listen to the response, and compare it to the expected responses printed below. If you are inclined to follow such advice, I have included helpful hints along with my analysis.

THE BIG QUESTION:
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

ANSWER:
However much he likes, so long as we can tax it.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a Democrat. While others might describe one who would suggest that corn should be used to fuel cars while caring deeply about preventing people from starving to death as "hypocritical," she can only describe him as "sexy."

ANSWER:
Is he a Mexican woodchuck? Yes? Then he as sure as hell shouldn't be chucking wood in America.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a Republican. Tell her you value her independence and self-reliance and prove it by never calling her back.

ANSWER:
The central planner will require the woodchuck to chuck 1,500 tonnes of wood in May, despite the coroner's suggestion that this will be impossible because the woodchuck starved to death in March.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a communist. Tell her she has an ability and you have a need.

ANSWER:
He should deal with as much wood as he likes.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a Libertarian. Ask her how much wood she would like. (Fair Disclosure: Libertarians are frequently armed.)

ANSWER:
Loggers are so evil, man. Do you have any weed?
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a hippie. Can you tolerate another three hours of semi-literate proselytizing punctuated by the word "like" and the smell of patchouli? If so, you're in.

ANSWER:
The woodchuck shouldn't chuck any wood, dammit! We're in the wood chucking business. My man in Washington will insure that this practice is regulated to the point that the woodchuck will no longer find it profitable.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a CEO. Complain vociferously about competition from other men, but if another gets close, taser him. She will think you are kindred spirits.

ANSWER:
I don't care how much wood he's chucking, so long as he pays his dues.
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a union boss. Better hope she'll let you cross her picket line.

ANSWER:
How much money you got, bub?
ANALYSIS:
This woman is a prostitute. Go for it.

ANSWER:
You have the right to remain silent...
ANALYSIS:
OK, maybe she was a vice cop. My bad.

ANSWER:
(Any other answer.)
ANALYSIS:
It's possible you're actually talking to a man. Proceed with due caution.

Acronyms

2008-04-05T23:08:00.009-06:00

Given the nature of acronyms, I am surprised that government agencies are so fond of them.

An acronym makes life more efficient. By using only one letter from each word in a phrase, especially if those letters form another word, considerably less energy can be used to convey the same concept. Time is saved in conversation. Money is saved on stationary and apparel. Complexity takes a back seat to simplicity. Hell, it even sounds cooler to scream "FBI!" while kicking in a door than to scream "Federal Bureau of Investigation." Especially if the latter must be punctuated by a deep breath.

This is incredibly unlike government.

Government doesn't like to save time. For instance, if a private citizen wants to kill someone, he buys a gun and shoots the guy. Elapsed time: 3 days (mandatory waiting period) and 14 minutes (to find the guy). If a government wishes to execute someone, it must first take the time to prove that this person committed a crime. Then, it must endure the entire appeals process. Finally, it must suffer through slow, drawn-out methods of execution like electrocution or lethal injection. Elapsed time: Between 5 and 20 years.

Government does not like to save money. Axiomatic as this may seem, let's consider the difference between the private citizen who finds $20 extra in his budget and the government that finds $20 extra in its budget. The private citizen will spend the money on some small luxury, put it toward his mortgage, or, perhaps, invest it. He will enjoy the sudden windfall he experienced. The government, meantime, will make use of this surplus to justify additional purchases totaling at least $300, then complain that its budget is not big enough.

Government is a natural enemy of simplicity. Look at the law. Better yet, break a law and see if you can figure out the intricacies of the court system without someone who spent at least three years and $100,000 in order to understand how to work in just one small part of the legal system. Or, if you're not into breaking laws, go to the DMV, where the only thing that can be described as simple is the rotund woman behind the desk.

Above all else, government is not cool. As incontrovertible evidence, I offer you President Rutheford B. Hayes. The man's name was Rutheford! 'Nuff said.

I will offer one theory on why government is prone to acronym use: to obscure information. This is an area in which government has always excelled, so the widespread use of acronyms in government could be explained by this impulse, even with so many other factors that would suggest an opposite trend.

Take, for instance, the Internal Revenue Service. By simply calling it the IRS, one no longer is faced with the absurd proposition that the IRS provides some sort of "service." Normally, one party gives another party money in exchange for doing something the first party believes will benefit him. Both parties are, thus, in improved situations. The IRS provides only the disappointing assurance that it will be back to collect more next year, and no rational person would voluntarily enter such an arrangement, as it does not improve his situation.

Moreover, when asked what IRS means, people will answer "Internal Revenue Service," as if that answers the question. To be accurate, one would say that the IRS is "A group of bastards who take my money." So long as the acronym stands as a layer of obfuscation between the accursed utterance and its actual meaning, the true function of the agency is twice obscured; once by the acronym and once more by its name.

It's that, or there's a House Committee on Acronyms that doesn't get much attention in the mainstream media. TYP. (Take Your Pick.)

March Toward November

2008-04-02T20:26:00.015-06:00

A contest that will not conclude until the fall is underway. Fortunes hang in the balance. Turnout is high. Pundits are already making predictions. And we will know the winner by the third week of November.

That's right - it's baseball season, but I can't blame you for thinking it's the upcoming federal election. After all, the similarities between baseball and the upcoming election aren't limited to a November finish.

Consider the following parallels:

The National League is the Republican Party.
Just as Republicans are loathe to allow a man to earn his living by having others do work for him, the National League has never instituted the designated hitter rule.

The American League is the Democratic Party.
Much like the Democratic Party, the AL is very popular in Massachusetts.

Hillary Clinton is the New York Yankees.
Both enjoyed successes during the 1990s. Now, despite their huge budgets, neither is likely to pull it off in the Main Event.

Barack Obama is the Chicago White Sox.
Both the Sox and Obama find themselves embarrassed when their respective teachers (Ozzie Guillen and Jeremiah Wright) go on offensive rants. Obama claims white people can't understand Wright's reason for ranting because they aren't black. Guillen claims white people can't understand his reason for ranting because they don't speak Spanish.

John McCain is the Arizona Diamondbacks.
With everyone so focused on big stories like Hillary or the Yankees, few are paying attention to McCain or the D-Backs. If either murders a hooker, this would likely change.

George W. Bush is the Texas Rangers.
Both will have some sort of effect on the race, but neither can win. The only difference is it isn't impossible for the Rangers to win because it's illegal - it's impossible because they're terrible at baseball.

Congress is the Washington Nationals.
Both are great at wasting money.

The Supreme Court is the 1948 World Series Champion Cleveland Indians' Starting Lineup
Nine octogenarians no one cares about.

The House Government Reform Committee is The House Government Reform Committee
Some things never change. Among those is the fact that the House Committee on Government Reform has better things to do than investigate steroid use in Major League Baseball.

The American People are the fans in the stands.
No matter who wins, a small group of people will be thrilled and the rest of us will just be pissed off.

I am a Rectangle with Four Sides of Equal Length

2008-03-28T22:31:00.006-06:00

Education has ruined rock 'n roll for me.

Let me provide a few examples of songs that are less fun when the listener knows a little too much:

Sitting, Waiting, Wishing by Jack Johnson
In this song, Jack laments that "lovin' somebody don't make them love you." Instead of enjoying the melody at this point, I cannot help but notice that the pronoun and antecedent are not in agreement. To correct this, I'll sing, "lovin' somebody don't make him or her love you." This completely ruins the rhythm, but does get the pronoun to agree.

Long Cool Woman (In a Black Dress) by the Hollies
In this song, the singer is working for the FBI. Right before he sees the aforementioned long, cool woman, he is about to call the "D.A. man." Unfortunately, this doesn't jive. The FBI would be working with a federal prosecutor, not a district attorney. I guess we can forgive the mistake, as the Hollies were English, and it's possible that they didn't know the difference. Besides, the song would sound much worse if he were a constable about to call a barrister.

Eight Days a Week by The Beatles
I actually don't have a problem with this song. Adding an additional day to the week seems like a completely legitimate use of hyperbole to express the depth of John and Paul's love. I was just hoping to play on your perception I could be that big of a tool, which couldn't be that much of a stretch after what you just read.

Blues for Yesterday by Charlie Musselwhite
Charlie, at the beginning of the song is riding into the setting sun. In the next verse, he notes that the moon is rising near the sun. Astronomy students will tell you that the moon rises in the East and sets in the West, just like the sun. Thus, if the sun is setting and the moon is near it, the moon must be setting (not rising!) as well. Of course, if this were to change, life on Earth might be radically worse, which would explain why he has the blues for yesterday.

I really hate myself for noticing these types of things.

There's a Reason the Canadian Dollar is Called a "Looney"

2008-03-10T02:29:00.005-06:00

I just noticed that my copy of the Federalist Papers has two prices listed. One is in American dollars, the other in Canadian dollars.

Are Canadians really reading the documents that map out the Founding Fathers' views on the federal government? Are they really going beyond naming the three branches and delving into what the American federal government ought to do? (That's more than the civics class I took in high school did.) This study would show an incredible dedication to political science on the part of the Canadians, especially given that it covers a form of government that isn't even their own.

By way of comparison, I don't know if the Canadians have an equivalent for the federalist papers. I know for sure that if they do I haven't read it. In fact, all I really know about the Canadian government is that the Prime Minister gets the letter "C" on his sweater and the MPs get the letter "A" on their sweaters.

I'm particularly impressed that such a purely intellectual pursuit would be undertaken by a group of people who aren't clever enough to drive over the border to save a few dollars on a book. Don't believe me? Check out these prices:

Federalist Papers: US: $6.50 CAN: $9.99
I, Robot: US: $7.99 CAN: $11.99
The Screwtape Letters: US: $11.95 CAN: $14.95

So, color me impressed, Canada. Your dedication to understanding the American government is admirable.

And it will be useful knowledge when we make you the 51st state.

A Philosophical Dialogue

2008-03-03T20:23:00.003-07:00

The Cast:
Bailiff - A burly man, his philosophical interests center mainly around people rising.
Judge - A no-nonsense ruler of his court room, he would wear a powdered wig if he could afford one.
Prosecutor - A cynical, heartless bastard. One of the few lawyers who was even before law school.
Rescartes - A brilliant man, his philosophical ideas are almost identical to those of Rene Descartes with one small twist: Rescartes is a serial killer.

BAILIFF: All rise!

JUDGE: Be seated. I understand we have an interesting case today.

PROSECUTOR: Yes, your honor. The defendant has told me he will refuse to enter a plea due to unncertainty.

JUDGE: Do I understand this correctly, Mr. Rescartes?

RESCARTES: Yes, your honor. I cannot enter a plea because I am not certain that what I am accused of doing actually happened.

JUDGE: Then you want to enter a plea of not guilty by mental defect?

RESCARTES: No, sir. I don't believe we can know whether any crime occurred.

JUDGE: A young woman is dead, Mr. Rescartes. She was stabbed. By you. In front of a priest, a nun, and a rabbi. Do you think they were lying?

RESCARTES: I do not question their honesty, sir. I question the accuracy of their perceptions.

JUDGE: All of them have 20/20 vision. You handed them your driver's license to examine after you finished, and the blood sample you provided for them matches your DNA. I hardly think you are the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

RESCARTES: I do not question that they perceived what they say they perceived, I question whether they accurately perceived what they say they perceived.

JUDGE: So, they all suffered from a delusion?

RESCARTES: Such a nasty word, delusion. I prefer to simply cast doubt on their perceptions by noting that our senses can deceive us. Something far away can appear small, but actually be large. Ipso facto, the senses cannot be trusted.

JUDGE: I fail to see the connection between the properties of light waves and the veracity of a statement by a man of the cloth.

RESCARTES: It stems from the notion that if we can determine that one of our senses might deceive us, we ought to reject all that it tells us.

JUDGE: That may be the standard you wish to use in your life, sir, but it is not the standard of this court.

RESCARTES: But it is exactly the standard of this court.

JUDGE: No, Mr. Descartes. We use the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

RESCARTES: This doubt is reasonable. It was arrived at through the use of reason!

JUDGE: Equivocate in my courtroom again, Mr. Rescartes, and I will hold you in contempt.

RESCARTES: But, your honor, how can you be certain I am even here to be contemptuous?

JUDGE: I can’t. And you can’t be sure that you are either, if I get your drift. Thus, you shouldn’t be too worried about me locking you up because you won’t be sure you’re incarcerated.

RESCARTES: That hardly seems like a fair application of my principles, your honor.

JUDGE: Tell it to the appeals court, Mr. Rescartes.

RESCARTES: But if I go to jail for this, it greatly increases the chances of a negative outcome in my civil case, sir. The parents of this girl seem to think that the fact that she ended up in an ambulance means that I owe them a hefty sum of money.

JUDGE: Ambulo ergo sum, eh?

RESCARTES (Scowling at the pun): Something of the sort. I urge you to reconsider.

JUDGE: No chance, Mr. Rescartes. Go to jail.

The judge bangs his gavel, Rescartes is taken away, and the next case on the docket is called.

Lessons Learned in College

2008-03-02T21:25:00.005-07:00

For those who doubt the value of a college education, I'd like to share brief snippets from some of the classes I've taken. They provide a mere sampling of the voluminous knowledge I gained in pursuit of my degree. Please feel free to substitute this list for the course catalog if you want to know what is taught in a given class.

Philosophy 2030: Theories of Mind
Captain Kirk is not real.
Fortunately for those who run Star Trek conventions, one must take a philosophy class to learn this.

Physics 1120: Electricity & Magnetism
If a charged particle moves through a B-Field, a force acts upon it.
Apparently, this is true even if there is not a runner on first.

Economics 1030: Business & Economy
Despite his ruinous economic policies, Kim Jong Il still thinks North Korea is a great place to live.
This is largely because Kim Jong Il's economic policies can be summed up as "give your possessions to Kim Jong Il."

Philosophy 3010: History of Modern Philosophy
If God can create existence ex nihilo, he can certainly blink a deer out of existence.
This information is particularly pertinent to those in wildlife management fields.

Astronomy 2030: Black Holes
Hawking Radiation is a major turn-off.
While the mechanism by which black holes radiate energy is fascinating, it is not a suitable topic for a first date. Trust me.

Political Science 4241: Constitutional Law
By the Acts of Congress of Feb. 28^th, 1795, ch.36 (1 Stat. at L., 424), and 3d of March 1807, ch. 39 (1 Stat. at L. 443), [the President] is authorized to call out the militia and use military and naval forces of the United States.
In retrospect, this is obvious. I'm embarrassed that I didn't know it until I took this class.

Philosophy 1440: Introductory Logic
It is fallacious to say, "Given that if JFK was murdered by the CIA, then JFK would be dead, and given that JFK is dead, he must have been murdered by the CIA."
It is shockingly easy to disprove conspiracy theories.

Lessons like these that taught me that the real value of education is not found in the wisdom you gain, but in the diploma you earn.

Mission Statement

2008-03-02T20:56:00.001-07:00

My hope is that what I write here proves to be more interesting than reading someone's grocery lists.

I know it's not a lofty goal, but it's more realistic than saying that I hope what I write here connects with people in such a way that I gain a world-wide following and can enjoy the fabulous wealth that results. The truth is, this is an exercise in self-indulgence. I love to write. I love when people read my writing. It's, as they say, killing two birds with one stone.

So, please, help me kill some birds.
-tj