Tub Time

My brother-in-law’s father kept a yearly log while all of his kids were growing up to track their activities, funny sayings and attitudes. This one was a keeper and came from my brother-in-law’s mouth when he was seven years old.

You were just out of the bathtub tonight when [your older sister] came walking in. Your words were, “Get out of here–I’m completely nude!” You also called Mom a “sex maniac,” because you claimed she was always coming in on you when you were getting dressed from your bath.

The Gun Store

Don’t think for a second the fine folks in Nevada will ever relinquish their Second Amendment rights.

I Can Hear You Now – Part VIII

This was not overheard strictly speaking, as I heard it on the radio. I am in Atlanta on business and stumbled on “Delilah.” I normally can’t listen more than 2 seconds, but this one caught my ear. A woman called in and told Delilah how thankful she was for her show. She wanted Delilah to play a song for her husband, who is of Native American descent. Apparently they make moccasins and stuff.

Her request to Delilah?

“Do you have any authentic Indian music? Maybe the theme from Pocahontas, Colors of the Wind?

It doesn’t get more authentic than that, right?

SkyMall Strikes Again

The minds at SkyMall have been hard at work to bring air travelers cutting-edge products to make life easier.

Exhibit A: The Slanket

Perhaps I don’t live in a cold enough climate to appreciate the need for a Slanket, the blanket that allows freedom to use your hands while not sacrificing your arms to the open air. For both indoor and outdoor use, you can even wear this to a baseball game to attract some strange stares. Or you could purchase these poncho covers for your whole family and keep the thermostat 10 degrees lower than usual. It’s so cool to be GREEN these days.

Exhibit B: DayClock

The ultimate insulting gift that tells the receiver they don’t have enough going on in their week to have to worry about the hour of the day, just the day!

Exhibit C: Nouveau Fireplace

What would you honestly say to someone if they had an “heirloom-quality” electric fireplace blazing beneath their DVD player? “Must shop at SkyMall!”

The Lamentations of Lowry – Chapter 6

I wanted to get this post out before too much time had passed since the IRF One Year Anniversary. It may be emblematic of what I bring to the table. Hopefully I don’t regret this.

WARNING: This post contains the word poop and synonyms. More than once. Enjoy.

I needed a respite from the tumult of the political season, and turned my substantial brain to the task of sustainable agriculture. This is especially critical in light of the impending worldwide food crisis. What does sustainable agriculture mean? I always thought it meant that when you pulled something out of the ground (food), you planted something in its place (more food). It also seems logical that you would want to maximize the yield and viability of the harvest. This is where the problem arises- SCIENCE had come up with ARTIFICIAL ways of increasing yield and protecting crops from pests and disease. How presumtuous of SCIENCE! SCIENCE is so proud of itself. Too bad SCIENCE doesn’t understand that the only way to grow food is organically. It is so obvious!

Naysayers of the organic movement have some criticism. They claim that there is no real harm done by altering foods and using fertilizer and other synthetic growing aids. Perhaps, but I know that when I buy organic food in the store I feel very special, more special than when I buy regular old non-organic foods. If organic food can have that effect on me before I even eat it, imagine what it is doing inside of my body! Take that SCIENCE!

Critics also claim that it will never be possible to supply enough food using organic growing methods. I have to admit that there is not enough livestock to provide all the requisite poo-poo. Nonetheless, I have a solution: human poo.

In this utopian ideal, driven by capitalist principles of course, people will be compensated for their pooduction. Simply put, some people are better poopers. These are my Alpha Poopers. In an all-organic future they are the creme-de-la-creme. More meager poo-makers will still receive recognition according to their gifts.

Understanding that not everyone is born with the same opportunities (or excretory systems), the Poo-aucracy will ensure that all citizens have access to training that can help them move up the ranks to the Alpha level. It’s only fair after all.

If we are to avoid the tremendous danger of worldwide food shortages, we have to ensure that the best quality food is availabe, and a lot of it. How better to do this than with our own doo-doo? I wish I could fully dive into the merits of this enticing plan. Perhaps another day.

Ignore the critics, the closed-minded. SCIENCE can only do so much, understand so much. We with the vision will take things to the next level!

 

We could all learn a thing or two…

What won’t Cal Berkeley provide with us?  If not people protesting internet censorship in China and throwing red paint at Soccer Moms SUV’s, now they are providing us with research that could change our lives. 

It’s true, there is more than meets the eye when it comes to Octupus sex, and I think that we humans could learn a thing or two. 

1. ”Males prefer large females,” Caldwell said. “If you’re going to invest in guarding, you want to get the most bang for your buck.”  (If we were Octupuses, I would’t have to waste money on my pesky personal trainer or say “I’ll pass” when the dessert menu comes by.

2.  “It was very common to have a very large male next to a large female,” Huffard said. “He could give her his sperm without leaving his den, and she didn’t leave hers. Nobody has to give up their apartment.”  (Well, this is just plain genius.  Men don’t have to put up with women nagging them about helping out around the house and women don’t have to deal with the ineveitable black leather recliner and enormous TV that wreak of testosterone).

Octupus sex.  I like the way they think. 

Who’s Watching the Watchers?

Over the weekend, I had an interesting experience on Facebook. Sitting at the laptop with my sister logged onto her profile, we carefully observed the photo album of a friend who went to junior high with me. Her pictures are always bordering on the outrageous–think lots of tube tops, body shots and Halloween taken to the max. While checking out the latest, we commented that it was such a relief Facebook friends can’t see who’s viewed their pictures and for how long. So we back-click to her profile, and ironically we see this enormous profile picture of my sister in a sidebar that says, “Nicki WAS HERE!” This Facebook application’s called “Anti-Stalker” and it put a damper on our Facebook enjoyment until we read the fine print days later.

It turns out, it’s a trick meant purely to freak out your friends and only the friend whose name appears in the “{Name} WAS HERE!” can see it. Phew. It would be a privacy violation otherwise if users could track other users’ trail on the site. Phew again.

However, do heed this warning for Evite. Did you know that as the host of an event, you can see who has opened the invitation but not yet responded? Your excuse of, “Sorry I missed the party, I didn’t get the Evite in time,” won’t hold up.

With our blog, we don’t know who our readers are (besides loyal commenters such as TRussell, SportsAttitude and Critts); the only thing we know is sites they’re directed from and the search terms used to find us. After one splendid year of blogging, it’s worth noting that the top three search terms that drive traffic our way are machu picchu, corset and soups. Machu Picchu has led 2,006 souls to perhaps the worst story they’ve ever heard, topping any personal experience they used to think was horrendous. Lending perspective is a continuing aim of IRF, while of course protecting our dear readers’ privacy.

The Lamentations of Lowry – Chapter 5

I liked the title of this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “The Coming Tax Bomb.” I’m not so crazy about the danger it describes. Cogan & Hubbard, each part of different Republican administrations, begin their warning in this manner:

As the presidential campaign enters its final stages, there will be increased debate over budget priorities and how they will be paid for. Many commentators and political leaders, including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, believe that tax increases are needed to restore near-term budget balance and finance longer-term entitlement growth.

These claims fail budget arithmetic and economics. Worse, they raise serious questions about the nation’s broad fiscal policies and its commitment to economic growth.

In a recent Businessweek interview with Maria Bartiromo Barack Obama made many statements that inspired fear should he be elected. Here’s one:

What we’re talking about is going back to the tax structure during the ’90s. Rich people were still rich. But we had a more balanced budget and as a consequence could sustain economic growth. For us to roll back some of those tax cuts and put this economy on a more stable fiscal footing…that is actually good long term for our economy, for investors, and Wall Street.

What does having a balanced government budget have to do with economic growth? Nothing! The economy can and has grown with surpluses, deficits, and balanced budgets. Do I support balanced budgets? Yes, but not at the expense of higher taxes which put the ECONOMY on weaker footing. What he proposes would increase government revenues, but not lead to a healthier economy. More from Barack:

There’s no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office next January. The thing you can be assured of is that I‘m not going to make these decisions based on ideology. I’m not a dogmatist. My opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal, but I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship. I believe in capitalism, and I want to do what works. One of the problems with the Bush Administration has been its rigidness when it comes to economic policy. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, they’ll say tax cuts. Trade deficit? Tax cuts. Slowdown in manufacturing? Tax cuts. At a certain point, if you’ve only got one arrow in the quiver, you’re going to have problems.

How about making decisions based on sound economic theory? I appreciate his stated intent to make decisions based on the climate if and when he takes office, but a belief in low taxes as a spur for economic growth is no more dogma than a belief in evolution as a scientific theory. Regarding the arrow in the quiver comment, there is nothing wrong with having one arrow if it works, and tax cuts are like a freaking thermonuclear arrow.

Cogan and Hubbard further explain why Obama is wrong:

Proponents of bigger government invariably argue that allowing all or some of President Bush’s tax cuts to expire is necessary in the near term to balance the federal budget, and necessary in the longer term to finance the retirement and health-care promises made to the baby-boom generation. But a tax increase is neither wise nor necessary.

As has so often been true in the past, the economic damage caused by the tax increases and tax avoidance behavior will prevent the promised revenues from being realized. At the same time, the promise of higher revenues will encourage Congress to continue its profligate spending. As a result, a tax increase won’t lower the budget deficit.

Moreover, current tax rates can be maintained and even reduced and still allow for necessary increases in national security appropriations and the balancing of the federal budget. Although budget balance may not be achieved overnight, a firm commitment by the next president to spending control will enable balance by the end of his or her first term.

Obama’s economic theories are based on a static vision of the “pie.” Tax hike proponents see a finite pool of potential revenues and want to increase the size of their piece. Michelle Obama said as much in an appearance in North Carolina:

If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership…for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

Hmmm…I wonder who will be doing the giving up. Probably rich people like me. It’s too bad that I believe that economics is not a zero-sum game. There can be (and are) MULTIPLE winners. The pie is not finite in size, but can grow. Lower taxes, let us (ME!) keep more. I will invest more, buy more, employ more. The pie grows, government revenues increase as a function of a growing pie. The more they take? The opposite occurs, and the revenues shrink.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

I Can Hear You Now

The entire city of San Francisco is buzzing with discussion of the Anti-China (Free Tibet) protests with the torch relay.

Overheard coworker:  “All I can say is that when I look down on those protesters, none of them better be wearing any clothes, because if they are, they’re all hypocrites!”

Billary making Moola

JL’s post prompted me to write something. I haven’t had a baby, moved, or anything so special as pick up a car from Sweden. Just living the life.

I thought this was a pretty funny SNL bit. They’ve been pretty good on the election so far, as watching Obama and Hillary go at it has been great fun for me. Sorry about the commercial.

from www.hulu.com posted with vodpod