It's official. I'm an old man. At the age of 24 I have crossed the threshold into geriatrics. True, physically, I am not an elderly citizen yet, but mentally and emotionally.
This realization came to me as I was driving to work today and somebody cut me off. I responded with an angry fist-waving. Normally, in my youth, a middle finger or a raised hand of some sort would have sufficed. Not today though. As I tooled to work in my Volvo listening to Morning edition on NPR minding my space, I shook my fist. Then, with hands at ten and two, I continued on to work, complaining about the damn people these days and their lack of decency.
It's not just driving that gets me. I don't know how many times in the past year I have uttered the phrase, "No one ever shows any respect anymore." Be it at the counter of the grocery store, standing in line for a movie or at work, this phrase should never be uttered by someone younger than 63 years of age. It's true though, no one has any sense of common decency nowadays. It's all about "me me me me" wherever you go. The really sad part is, most of these people really shouldn't have very high opinions of themselves. They're the losers in society. They have no social skills. They are rude, selfish and unconcerned completely for their fellow man. Damn I'm old...
The fact that all I listen to all day at work is talk radio, is proof in itself that I might be gettin' on in years. Ok, so sometimes I'll pop in Thelonious Monk or Billie Holiday, but that does not help my case, does it? I have a hard time even naming what young people listen to nowadays. Other than the great music I used to get from my still young friends back in Iowa City that is. Most of the new stuff I hear in clubs sounds like garbage and is too loud... "Too loud" is another phrase left to old men. "Turn down that racket!" Seriously gettin' old here people.
My idea of a rompin' stompin' good time? At home, in my chair in front of the fireplace, reading a good book, listening to classical music and sipping either a glass of wine or a glass of fine scotch. Note: this is a Saturday night game plan, not a Tuesday. What kind of book am I reading? A history book. Not the newest thriller on the shelves. A book detailing the crimes of the US in Guatemala. Or better yet, the book about the history of the banana. Bananas. Ba-na-na. Come on. Do I watch television? Hell no! That's for young people, with their MTV and VH1. I would much rather curl up and watch an episode of M*A*S*H. I prefer Perry Mason to CSI, seriously, check PM out.
And to top it all off. Guess where my girlfriend and I went for dinner the other night? Baker's Square. It was a Saturday night. Actually, more like, five in the afternoon. I think we made it in time for the early bird special... good lord...
So, I think I am going to listen to some Ratatat, drive fast, drink shitty light beer at some crowded, overly loud bar, wake up at two in the afternoon and try to recapture my youth.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What if...?
Zombies kick serious ass right? So, one of my coworkers and myself have been thinking about what to do if a zombie apocalypse occurred here in downtown Des Moines.
The building we are located in at first seems a bit unreliable. The bottom floor is basically lined with windows that could easily be shattered by mindless hordes. Unless of course the zombies turn out to be really weak sauce like in Dawn of the Dead, where they couldn't break in through the giant glass doors at the front of the mall. This building probably isn't as well constructed, based on what I have figured out about it so far (including when the keypad to the restroom fell off, that was an awkward day.) Anyway, we figure the zombies could at least get into the first floor.
Then what?
We looked around for weapons. Failed miserably at this also. I don't think a wireless keyboard would do enough damage to take down a zommer. Nor would a coffee mug with a sun on it. The coffee might hurt them, I know damn well it hurts me every day. So, we decided we would be defenseless, unless we could figure out how to throw computer monitors...
Worst situation imaginable yes? No.
Upon review, I found many positives about this building. It's the diversity of businesses that helps our case. We have a restaurant next door, I can actually see into it from where I am at. So I was thinking- food supply. While this wouldn't provide us with much food, it would be enough to stave off starvation for a while. Plus, I bet they have all kinds of utensils in the kitchen that could be used to lop off heads. That would be my first stop.
Down the hall is the elevator to the second floor, seriously, just two floors but still an elevator. This has a plus. If we hole up on the second floor, we could send out explorers and the elevator would serve us well. While the people in the elevator might get hosed, it would be simpler to prevent zombie expansion. Only so many zombies can fit in it, so only so many could possibly come back up with it. Yeah?
The best part, upstairs is a freakin doctor's office. Granted, they are otolaryngologists, but they gotta have more than just a first aid kit. So, we could hang out upstairs, eating pasta, using medical supplies to heal any damage, and use the elevator for excursions. The basics are down. This place is more secure than I thought. The best part is this though...
We are right across the street from the capital. I imagine this would be one of the first places the National Guard was sent to secure, so we wouldn't even have to hole up for long. If the Nat'l Guard could deal with zombies that is.
Alright, so my job sucks and we do a lot to avoid depression from boredom. But hey, planning for a zombie apocalypse is one of the most interesting things one can do. It doesn't take much and it allows you to be creative. I suggest everyone try it, especially if you hate your job as much as I do. It's also a little more lighthearted than some of the crap I worry about, like Roma children being slowly killed by lead poisoning in Kosovo, or the like.
The building we are located in at first seems a bit unreliable. The bottom floor is basically lined with windows that could easily be shattered by mindless hordes. Unless of course the zombies turn out to be really weak sauce like in Dawn of the Dead, where they couldn't break in through the giant glass doors at the front of the mall. This building probably isn't as well constructed, based on what I have figured out about it so far (including when the keypad to the restroom fell off, that was an awkward day.) Anyway, we figure the zombies could at least get into the first floor.
Then what?
We looked around for weapons. Failed miserably at this also. I don't think a wireless keyboard would do enough damage to take down a zommer. Nor would a coffee mug with a sun on it. The coffee might hurt them, I know damn well it hurts me every day. So, we decided we would be defenseless, unless we could figure out how to throw computer monitors...
Worst situation imaginable yes? No.
Upon review, I found many positives about this building. It's the diversity of businesses that helps our case. We have a restaurant next door, I can actually see into it from where I am at. So I was thinking- food supply. While this wouldn't provide us with much food, it would be enough to stave off starvation for a while. Plus, I bet they have all kinds of utensils in the kitchen that could be used to lop off heads. That would be my first stop.
Down the hall is the elevator to the second floor, seriously, just two floors but still an elevator. This has a plus. If we hole up on the second floor, we could send out explorers and the elevator would serve us well. While the people in the elevator might get hosed, it would be simpler to prevent zombie expansion. Only so many zombies can fit in it, so only so many could possibly come back up with it. Yeah?
The best part, upstairs is a freakin doctor's office. Granted, they are otolaryngologists, but they gotta have more than just a first aid kit. So, we could hang out upstairs, eating pasta, using medical supplies to heal any damage, and use the elevator for excursions. The basics are down. This place is more secure than I thought. The best part is this though...
We are right across the street from the capital. I imagine this would be one of the first places the National Guard was sent to secure, so we wouldn't even have to hole up for long. If the Nat'l Guard could deal with zombies that is.
Alright, so my job sucks and we do a lot to avoid depression from boredom. But hey, planning for a zombie apocalypse is one of the most interesting things one can do. It doesn't take much and it allows you to be creative. I suggest everyone try it, especially if you hate your job as much as I do. It's also a little more lighthearted than some of the crap I worry about, like Roma children being slowly killed by lead poisoning in Kosovo, or the like.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bailout GM??
I've been hearing a lot of talk about this, I was wondering what everyone else thought or had heard about it. Their are people who are suggesting we use bailout money for automakers. Paulson suggested that there is no way he would use the money that way, but what if he did? Would it be a good thing? Ford, GM, Chrysler, they are all struggling, but let's not forget that even automakers like Toyota and Honda are feeling the pinch.
I will use General Motors as the example here. It's the simplest example out there right now. There are two options for GM. Either they can beg and plead for taxpayer money or they can simply declare bankruptcy. The bailout would probably in the way of about $120 billion for two years. That's just a rough estimate put out there by Jon Blank, a senior industry strategist at Decision Economics. Compare that to what the government has already poured into AIG and it isn't a bad number for two years. It would help keep people in their jobs, from factory workers to parts suppliers. All of these workers keep their jobs and keep buying items from retailers, retailers get to keep more people on and these people are able to buy more groceries and so on. The idea of keeping people employed is a good argument for the bailout, but is it just prolonging the inevitable with GM?
It would be very beneficial in keeping the company afloat, but would not necessarily make it competitive. GM has been failing in that respect for quite some time now. We would need a way to ensure that GM would change its strategy by the time they were turned loose. We should probably turn the bums out that have been driving the company into the dirt. They should be completely cut loose, no benefits packages, no severance pay, don't let them benefit from their failure. It's not the average worker's fault the company is failing, so they shouldn't suffer. If need be, take some money away from the CEOs that have been robbing their companies blind. Would you pay someone millions of dollars to run your company into the ground? Sorry, I got a bit ranty there.
It would be very beneficial in keeping the company afloat, but would not necessarily make it competitive. GM has been failing in that respect for quite some time now. We would need a way to ensure that GM would change its strategy by the time they were turned loose. We should probably turn the bums out that have been driving the company into the dirt. They should be completely cut loose, no benefits packages, no severance pay, don't let them benefit from their failure. It's not the average worker's fault the company is failing, so they shouldn't suffer. If need be, take some money away from the CEOs that have been robbing their companies blind. Would you pay someone millions of dollars to run your company into the ground? Sorry, I got a bit ranty there.
This wouldn't be the first automaker bailout, Chrysler received $1.5 billion in 1979. There are a lot of similarities with Chrysler 1979 and GM 2008. Chrysler was hit hard by the oil boycotts because they had been pumping out large gas-guzzlers... sound familiar? It pushed Chrysler in a good direction, they went with more fuel efficient vehicles and gave us the minivan. It also returned a decent profit for taxpayers in the form of a $2 billion check to the US government, seven years before it was required. Would this happen now with GM? There are those that argue that Chrysler should have been allowed to fail in order to streamline Detroit's auto-industry and make it more efficient. But then we mightn't have minivans...
Option 2 - we let GM declare bankruptcy and see if it could turn itself around given a little bit of time. This would hurt the shareholders and we might see a run away from GM stock if this gets talked about too much. They would buy themselves a buffer, might have to cut some jobs (most would be able to keep their jobs from what I gather), but the company probably won't be able to set itself straight in a few months. They might still fail because the same people would be at the helm, but perhaps it would teach them a lesson. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy might not completely destroy a company, but it's definitely a humbling experience.
Personally, I think we should figure out a way to continue the companies' existence by taking money from all of those who profited by driving the company into the ground and heavily taxing fuel-inefficient vehicles that are unnecessary. That might sound socialist, but letting people make money from failing is sure as hell not capitalism.
Chrysler bailout on NPR- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96922222
Prof talks about GM- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96945344
French cars struggle too- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96917666
GM v. Toyota- http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/
More links, dealing with Midwest- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96909271
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
E-Day 2008
Indeed it is election day, and unlike many young voters, I did not vote early. The plan has been to vote tonight at our designated polling station. My girlfriend and I are going together to cast our ballots. When we discussed who we were voting for, she for Obama, me for McCain, the question of our votes cancelling came up. Why would we even bother leaving the house? If I vote one way and she votes the other, then it's like we didn't vote at all right? Then I brought up the fact that there a lot of other people on the ballot.
This isn't just a presidential election.
No way right? So, I took the time to go over the other candidates that will appear on the ballot with my girlfriend. Granted my view in these cases might be a bit biased. I like Tom Harkin a lot for instance, so I might have endorsed him a little more than his opponent. The point that I made to my girlfriend is that, despite the furor over the presidential campaign, other offices should be considered. I wonder how many people go into the booth vote for president, then just randomly check boxes. I wish I would have thought of this sooner than the day of the election, but what can you do?
Here in Iowa we send five representatives to the House. I currently live in district 3, albeit very damned close to district 4. If you ever want a lesson in gerrymandering, look at your house districts. The race isn't what you would call a close, hard-fought battle, but it bears looking at. Leonard Boswell (D) is the incumbent. He is running against Kim Schmett (R) who is running on a solid background. It's basically a choice between a proven leader and someone who has been tested in other areas. Luckily, neither one of them seem a bad choice. Boswell is 74 though (Schmett is a spritely 55) and this might mean it's time for change. We even have a third party candidate running, Frank Forrestal under the SWP ticket. That's right, a true socialist. None of this Obama-crap. While Forrestal doesn't have much of a chance, he's on there and he's raising issues. And, if people vote by blind guessing after they vote for president, he might stand a chance.
http://www.boswellforcongress.com
http://www.KimSchmett.com
I couldn't find a good website for Forrestal, so feel free to use http://www.dogpile.com/ to look him up.
I also live in State House District 59. This is an interesting race between Chris Hagenow (R) and Jerry Sullivan (D). Again, both candidates have strong backgrounds. Sullivan is a former broker and senior financial service representative at Prinicipal Financial. Hagenow has his law degree from the University of Iowa (Go Hawks!) Sullivan is focusing on bringing new businesses to Iowa, something this state could use. Hagenow focuses on spending issues, something Iowa is generally very pragmatic about.
http://www.chrishagenow.com
http://jerrysullivanforstaterep.org
The State Senate isn't really a contest. Seriously, only the one choice. So, make sure you don't mess that one up on the ballot...
The Race for US Senate, or How Tom Harking Stole My Heart. Tom Harkin (D) is the incumbent, being challenged by Christopher Reed (R). I've grown up watching Harkin do amazing things for Iowa, so my opinion is biased. I have great respect for both candidates and wish Reed the best, as long as he doesn't beat Harkin. He's not really a bad guy, but he's running on the basic Republican platform (note, this is not necessarily what I think of when I think of conservatism). I can't even debate this, Harkin needs to win again, and it looks like he will.
http://www.tomharkin.com
http://www.Christopherreed2008.com
For more news on these guys or to figure out who is running in your district, check out http://www.desmoinesregister.com/section/iowaelection08. Not the best coverage in the world, but it works.
So, learn a little before you vote. Knowing Obama is a pretty speaker and McCain is a creepy old man doesn't make you knowledgeable. Don't just vote a party line. Please don't just vote randomly, that's how we get socialists... If you can't do it for this election, there will be another big one in two years. Just keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.
PS - I might have been upset when I last posted...
This isn't just a presidential election.
No way right? So, I took the time to go over the other candidates that will appear on the ballot with my girlfriend. Granted my view in these cases might be a bit biased. I like Tom Harkin a lot for instance, so I might have endorsed him a little more than his opponent. The point that I made to my girlfriend is that, despite the furor over the presidential campaign, other offices should be considered. I wonder how many people go into the booth vote for president, then just randomly check boxes. I wish I would have thought of this sooner than the day of the election, but what can you do?
Here in Iowa we send five representatives to the House. I currently live in district 3, albeit very damned close to district 4. If you ever want a lesson in gerrymandering, look at your house districts. The race isn't what you would call a close, hard-fought battle, but it bears looking at. Leonard Boswell (D) is the incumbent. He is running against Kim Schmett (R) who is running on a solid background. It's basically a choice between a proven leader and someone who has been tested in other areas. Luckily, neither one of them seem a bad choice. Boswell is 74 though (Schmett is a spritely 55) and this might mean it's time for change. We even have a third party candidate running, Frank Forrestal under the SWP ticket. That's right, a true socialist. None of this Obama-crap. While Forrestal doesn't have much of a chance, he's on there and he's raising issues. And, if people vote by blind guessing after they vote for president, he might stand a chance.
http://www.boswellforcongress.com
http://www.KimSchmett.com
I couldn't find a good website for Forrestal, so feel free to use http://www.dogpile.com/ to look him up.
I also live in State House District 59. This is an interesting race between Chris Hagenow (R) and Jerry Sullivan (D). Again, both candidates have strong backgrounds. Sullivan is a former broker and senior financial service representative at Prinicipal Financial. Hagenow has his law degree from the University of Iowa (Go Hawks!) Sullivan is focusing on bringing new businesses to Iowa, something this state could use. Hagenow focuses on spending issues, something Iowa is generally very pragmatic about.
http://www.chrishagenow.com
http://jerrysullivanforstaterep.org
The State Senate isn't really a contest. Seriously, only the one choice. So, make sure you don't mess that one up on the ballot...
The Race for US Senate, or How Tom Harking Stole My Heart. Tom Harkin (D) is the incumbent, being challenged by Christopher Reed (R). I've grown up watching Harkin do amazing things for Iowa, so my opinion is biased. I have great respect for both candidates and wish Reed the best, as long as he doesn't beat Harkin. He's not really a bad guy, but he's running on the basic Republican platform (note, this is not necessarily what I think of when I think of conservatism). I can't even debate this, Harkin needs to win again, and it looks like he will.
http://www.tomharkin.com
http://www.Christopherreed2008.com
For more news on these guys or to figure out who is running in your district, check out http://www.desmoinesregister.com/section/iowaelection08. Not the best coverage in the world, but it works.
So, learn a little before you vote. Knowing Obama is a pretty speaker and McCain is a creepy old man doesn't make you knowledgeable. Don't just vote a party line. Please don't just vote randomly, that's how we get socialists... If you can't do it for this election, there will be another big one in two years. Just keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.
PS - I might have been upset when I last posted...
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Moment to vent
I have discovered of late that there are two types of people on social networking websites. The first I like. They are the mothers who post cookie recipes, that turn out to be amazing. They also discuss topics like, how do I make this casserole better? or good Halloween ideas. That's why I haven't pulled off of the website entirely and gone back to good old fashion dead-tree and postage.
The other kind of person on these sites, the more common of the two I might say, can be dubbed the "ranting douchebag that doesn't lend any credence to the conversation and should probably have just read the post and walked away but thought they would be a douchebag instead." Or, for my typing's sake, db. They don't make any sense. When they leave a post, it's just an angry rant. Or they use highly flawed information. These are the kind of people that made recess suck when you were little. They start fights because they like to fight, not because they enjoy discussing relevant issues.
Which begs the question... DO ANY OF YOU F**KING GROWNUPS LIKE TO HAVE GROWNUP F**KING DISCUSSIONS??? No one on gather.com does. I know that. I have tried to post twice, once about Israel and the Saudi Peace plan, once about the similarities between Kosovo and Ireland. Both times some jackass would enter the discussion with a comment like "I would never compare Ireland and Kosovo, there [sic] two different countries." And I am left to wonder why that is relevant to what I am asking, and are they utterly and completely mental?
Or, the post starts off angry, then I clarify my point. Then the other poster creates kind of an "oh I get it now." Instead of continuing the discussion, the other posters leave because there isn't going to be a fight. Rather than have an intelligent discussion, these people just want to leave posts using idiot phrases and words too big for their little brains to comprehend correctly.
I apologize for the rant, but gather.com sucks for anything but recipes, which it kicks ass for. Get this, I learned how to make peanut butter fudge! NFW right?
The other kind of person on these sites, the more common of the two I might say, can be dubbed the "ranting douchebag that doesn't lend any credence to the conversation and should probably have just read the post and walked away but thought they would be a douchebag instead." Or, for my typing's sake, db. They don't make any sense. When they leave a post, it's just an angry rant. Or they use highly flawed information. These are the kind of people that made recess suck when you were little. They start fights because they like to fight, not because they enjoy discussing relevant issues.
Which begs the question... DO ANY OF YOU F**KING GROWNUPS LIKE TO HAVE GROWNUP F**KING DISCUSSIONS??? No one on gather.com does. I know that. I have tried to post twice, once about Israel and the Saudi Peace plan, once about the similarities between Kosovo and Ireland. Both times some jackass would enter the discussion with a comment like "I would never compare Ireland and Kosovo, there [sic] two different countries." And I am left to wonder why that is relevant to what I am asking, and are they utterly and completely mental?
Or, the post starts off angry, then I clarify my point. Then the other poster creates kind of an "oh I get it now." Instead of continuing the discussion, the other posters leave because there isn't going to be a fight. Rather than have an intelligent discussion, these people just want to leave posts using idiot phrases and words too big for their little brains to comprehend correctly.
I apologize for the rant, but gather.com sucks for anything but recipes, which it kicks ass for. Get this, I learned how to make peanut butter fudge! NFW right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
