I Do(nate)

Let's say that you have a birthday or a wedding or even an anniversary coming up in the near future.  And let's say that you want to make sure to really irritate all of your potential guests and possibly sever relationships with them for quite some time.  Well have I got the solution for YOU!  Now, for what I'm going to presume is a limited time, you can sign up for the Obama Event Registry and instruct your would-be guests to donate to his campaign in lieu of getting you a gift!  Doesn't that sound great?!  And by 'great', I mean 'really freaking weird'. 

I seriously thought that this was just some sort of an Internet rumor when I first read about it.  But no, it's right over yonder at Barackobama.com  It simply (while ignoring the weirdness of it all) says: "Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up? Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl. Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today"  I'm not so sure that donating to his campaign is going to get you more than you'd get out of a gravy...bowl?  Isn't it a gravy boat?  What the what is a gravy bowl?  Never mind.  I digress.  (But I'm pretty sure it's boat, not bowl.) 

I'm going to go right ahead and say that this is pretty tacky.  How the Obama campaign can even think to ask to be a gift recipient for someone's special occasion is beyond me.  I realize that people sometimes choose a charity or an organization that they'd prefer that people donate to instead of giving a gift.  These people I collectively think of as saps (provided it isn't for a funeral).  But to just come right out and ask that people consider collecting money, cleverly disguised as a gift, for your campaign is just flat out weird.  It kind of has the slight stench of desperation as well. 

Here's the main reason why I think it's just a bizarre thought:  It seems to presume that every single one of your friends that  you would even consider inviting to such an important life event has the same political affiliation that you do.  What a great way to create a huge divide between yourself and your friends with different political views than yourself!  Is the Obama campaign so narrow minded that they think that everyone only has a group of friends and acquaintances that think the exact same way that they do?  Good Lord, could you imagine bringing up something like this at Thanksgiving dinner?  I'm sure that your older and more conservative relatives will just relish in joy of your requesting to make a donation to the opposite of their beliefs.  Because who doesn't like good old fashioned political talk at a wedding?! 

Why stop at just birthdays and weddings and anniversaries?  Why not include graduations in that mix as well?  Oh, and in lieu of having flowers sent to a funeral, how about you just instruct them to donate to his campaign instead?  And for God's sake, don't just stop at your own birthday.  Make sure that's what your children's friends do as well.  Besides, having all of those gifts around just clutters up the party space, right?  Riiiiight. Don't forget the Tooth Fairy!  Might as well include Santa and the Easter Bunny in all of that too, wouldn't you think? 

I would love to have statistics on how many soft heads out there actually participate in this particular campaign of giving or whatever you want to call it.  (I want to call it one of the weirdest and tackiest things ever, but that's just me.)  I've said it several times before, he's not a Muslim; he's a socialist.  Keep your eye on the ball, people.  He's coming after your gifts!  Run!  RUN!

Sphere: Related Content

One Per Customer, Ma'am

This video is old (2007), but I still find it highly amusing.  There are some things money can't buy.  A little sense appears to be one of them. 

Sphere: Related Content

Good Luck, Players

Well, it looks like there isn't going to be an NBA season. I'm not even sure exactly what the last offer that the owners made to the players, but I know that they should have taken it. And here's why...

You might have a fabulous talent for doing something. Regardless as to what that something is, the value of your talent isn't necessarily determined by you, but rather by others who are in a position to evaluate your talent to see how it may be of benefit to them. Let's say that you can paint pictures of cats really well. You paint pictures of cats so well that no one can tell the difference between your pictures of cats and actual photographs of cats. You're THAT good! But all people who see your pictures of cats only say, "Wow! You're really good at painting cats!" And then they move on. Does that benefit you in any way? OK, your ego gets a little stroking here and there. (That's ALL that gets stroked in this scenario, all right? JUST the ego!) But it's not like you're going to make a living selling your cat pictures when no one is there to pay for your cat pictures. It doesn't mean that you don't possess an extraordinary talent. It just means that other people don't care as much as you might think that they should.


That's how this NBA thing is shaping up to look like for the players. Sure, they can play basketball really well. I don't think that I'd be exaggerating if I said that the players in the NBA were the best basketball players in the world. But that's not going to matter if they don't have a league to play in. And the owners know that. The owners seem perfectly OK with telling the players to take their offer or leave it because the owners will be fine in the end. I'm not saying that the NBA is going to fold because the two sides can't work things out, but if it did, the owners would be just fine. The players, on the other hand, probably not so much.


I've always seen the NBA as the most narcissistic of all the organized sports. (I also see it as the most thuggish, but that's a whole different post.) They seem to think that their outrageous salaries are just not enough. From what I can figure, the average NFL salary is between $770,000 and about a million dollars a season. AND the average NFL career lasts about 3.5 years. Compare that to the average NBA salary which is an astonishing $4.5 million per year and an average career of around five years. That's just absolutely insane and unsustainable in the long run. And the long run is here, but the players just don't want to accept it or something.


So, good luck players. Good luck being the best basketball players on the planet without having anywhere to play or without having anyone to watch you play. Sure, go ahead and start your own league. I'm sure that you'll have that up and running in no time. But if that doesn't work and y'all decide to stop being just greedy babies about everything, let someone know. We wouldn't mind having NBA games to watch this season, but I guarantee you that we're not going to die without them. The ball is pretty much in your court, players. And you can take your ball and go home if you want. It's your choice, but I think that you're making the wrong one.

Sphere: Related Content

She Probably Didn't Know

Ruth Madoff is making the rounds. You might remember her as the wife of scumbag thief Bernie Madoff. You might remember Bernie Madoff as the orchestrator of the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world; to the tune of about $65 billion dollars. If you have a hard time remembering his name, just call him Scumbag. It's accurate and it works. But I digress. His wife is now promoting a book (of course) and I needed to comment on some of the delusions that she appears to be suffering from.

First of all, I'd really appreciate it if she would stop talking about this incident as if something, like that akin to a hurricane, has happened to her. She's a little too victim-y for my liking. She can be mad all she wants, but I'd appreciate it if she would direct that anger at her scumbag swindler of a husband and not everyone who justifiably hates her and her entire family. Her not acknowledging that the hatred is probably deserved (or, at the very least,justifiable) isn't going to make anyone like her any more than they already don't.

Next, I keep hearing that she isn't going to be receiving any of the profits from the book that is coming out. Now, when I first heard that, I was fairly surprised and rather pleased. Then I heard that the money would be going to her son's fiance. Yeah, that's the same as her getting the money. Do you really think that she agreed to participate in the writing of the book without requiring one cent in return? I highly doubt it. She's getting paid and I'd appreciate it if folks would stop acting like she isn't.


I watched a lot of her interview on 60 Minutes. I would have watched more than I did except that I kept getting distracted by wondering how much plastic surgery she'd had over the years in order to look the way that she currently does. But one of the things that I did manage to take away from that interview was my assessment of her involvement in the whole ripping off people trying to save for retirement dealio. She says she didn't know and I kind of don't think that she did. Think about it. How much do you know about your spouse's work? I mean the intricate ins and outs. What do you know? Not squat, that's right. I'll give her a break. I'm not so sure about the son, though. That he doesn't appear to have an upper lip isn't helping him win any credibility points with me, either. He really should have had that fixed when they were all rolling around in Scrooge McDuck sized piles of cash.

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Pay More If You Want

OK. That's it. I don't know exactly what all of you Occupy Wall Street folks think you're going to accomplish, but I'm pretty sure you're barking up the wrong tree. Why these people are not occupying the spaces in front of places like the Capital or the House is beyond me. If they want regulations to change, I don't think that protesting in front of the people who are not making the regulations is going to do a lot of good. But that's just me. Then again, since I'm not really all that clear on what they want to begin with, maybe my thinking on the matter is just off. I am, however, disappointed that all of the signs are spelled correctly. Then again, how else are they all going to put those liberal arts degrees to good use?

But this is what really irritates me: All of the people who are in the "one percent" that are constantly saying that they want their taxes to be raised. Yep. Those people irritate the crap out of me. See, when you pay your taxes every year, there is a little section at the bottom where you can opt to pay more than you owe. That's right. There is a section on your 1040 where you can volunteer to pay more money if you want to. Get a refund? You can give it back if you want to. It's right there. Now, I haven't heard one, not ONE of these people (I'm talking to YOU Warren Buffett, Russell Simmons, Al Sharpton and the insufferable Kanye West) mention that they have been paying MORE than they have been required to because they feel like it is the "right" thing to do. Not ONE. Maybe they have been. I really don't know. But I kind of think that if that is what they'd been doing that they would have mentioned that right away. But they haven't. So here's my proposal: When those people want to start paying MORE than what they're required to pay, THEN they can talk about how they want their taxes raised. In the meantime, they need to pipe down.

And as long as I'm on this subject, I don't see how raising the taxes on 1% of people who make a truckload of money is going to do any good. Do all of these occupiers realize that approximately 50 percent of the country pays NO income tax?! NONE! And I understand that they're "poor". I get that. But I also get that they're not only just not paying taxes. They're also getting some sort of benefits on top of that. Whether it be food stamps or a rent reduction or Medicare or Social Security checks or whatever. Am I sorry that there are poor people? Yeah. Do I realize that every society has tiers and that's just how society works? Of course I do. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't alter the disparity in a society by simply asking for more money from a select 1 percent of your population while ignoring what is almost a freaking majority who contribute nothing to that society.

I just want people to understand that there are so many people out there who aren't paying their fair share. Hell, they're not even paying A share, let alone a fair one. But yet, these people get to vote on how tax dollars are spent. MY tax dollars. And when more and more and more people just want and want and want, then what happens? I'm guessing you end up with a bunch of people across the country protesting in front of financial institutions and pooping on the sidewalk! At least, that's what San Francisco looks like. (I had to navigate my way through an obstacle course of fecum the other day. It was like an Olympic event that no one wanted.)

I really want to know who all of these people voted for, if they even voted at all, in the last election. I also really want to know (if they did vote) if they're going to vote for someone different this time around (especially in elections for senators). I'm also dying to know if they're going to vote for President Barry again. (And don't get me wrong, I want to like the guy as a President. I really do. But I just don't. He doesn't DO anything. NOTHING has gotten done.) Statistics would have me believe that only 49% of those protesting actually voted (assuming they were eligible). Huh. That might explain a lot, actually. It doesn't explain the poop on the sidewalk, but I think it does explain an awful lot about other things.

Sphere: Related Content

And No One Gets Fired

I like to goof off at work as much as the next person. But I've decided that I want to take my shenanigans to a whole different level. And I want to be all shenanigan-y and not have to worry about any repercussions. That's what I want. Ergo, I want a job with the federal government.

I'm sure that by now you've heard the story of how the Justice Department spent outrageous sums of money on minor items. What we're talking about specifically are things like spending sixteen dollars for one muffin and spending $8.24 for one cup of coffee and five bucks for a Swedish meatball. And all of this ridiculous gastronomical spending took place at conferences that the Justice Department held at places like the Hilton in San Francisco. Real smart.

Now look, I've been to plenty of conferences in my time. And this is what I can tell you about them: They're boring as can be. No one really looks forward to them, though they do appreciate a day or two away from the regular grind whilst still getting paid. There isn't a single thing at a conference that can't be conveyed to the attendees in some memo or packet form. Oh, and the notion that you have to travel somewhere to attend a conference? Completely ludicrous. There's nothing that you need/want to "learn" that you need to travel to. Ask anyone. It's all bull.

And after an audit revealed that the Justice Department spends money with less restraint than a drunken sailor on leave (my apologies to all drunken sailors, and thank you for your service), everyone was suddenly up in arms. Arms everywhere! And we heard quotes like this one from a one Charles E. Grassley as quoted in the Washington Post: "Sixteen-dollar muffins and $600,000 for event planning services are what make Americans cynical about government and why they are demanding change." Um, well, yeah. He's partially correct.

See, the follow up to revelations like this, again according to the Washington Post, went like this: "The Obama administration reacted to reports of $16 dollar muffins served at Justice Department conferences by ordering agencies to review the spending of taxpayer dollars at such meetings." Wait. That's ALL?!

ALL that they're going to do is ask agencies to REVIEW the spending of MY money?! Why in the bloody hell are they not doing that in the first place?! Remember all of that hope and change blather? Nothing has changed! Thus, my lack of hope! Don't you think that if "change" was your priority that you would have "changed" things a long time ago? Are you kidding me?! Some softhead out there (getting paid with MY money) thinks that it is OK to spend $16 each on many, many muffins and they don't get fired?!

I think that most people just assume that there is going to be waste. What makes us angrier than the waste is that nothing ever happens to the people who are buying all of these $16 muffins! They get to keep their job. Why is that?! It's MY money! I want them fired! I want people who have not a care in the world as to how they spend someone else's money on someone besides themselves FIRED. I don't want those people working in the federal government and I certainly don't want them in charge of anything having to do with accountability of finances! It's NOT irresponsibility. It's incompetence!

And I swear to you, if I read one, just ONE account of any of this incompetent spending having originated during the Bush administration, I am going to lose it. I don't care. This is what is happening now. And people need to be held accountable...by being fired. Also, if anyone out there has any idea what a $16 muffin tastes like, I'd like to know.

Sphere: Related Content

Show Me The Money

Remember that story of the three American dumbasses hikers who thought that it would be a good idea to go for a little stroll right there along the border of Iran? And then the Iranians arrested them and accused them of being spies? And they've been in an Iranian prison ever since? You remember, right? Right. Well now, it looks like Iran might be willing to release them on "humanitarian" grounds, but there's kind of a catch. See, "humanitarian" to the Iranians means they want a million dollars and then they'll let them go.

And I really don't care one way or the other whether or not they let those numbnuts go. As much as I dislike Iran, I really don't have any problem with any country enforcing the laws regarding their borders and keeping people out of their country. I know it's a foreign concept (pun not really intended) for the United States, but other countries really do seem to give a fat rat's ass about who legally comes and goes. Go figure. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. The numbnuts and their million dollars of humanity.

I keep reading all of these news reports about how their release is imminent as soon as the million dollars ($500,000 per dumbass) is paid. As you'll recall, their companion, a one Sarah Shourd, was released a while back after $500,000 was paid for her release. Now, thinking back on that incident and reading about current events, I'm noticing that there is one small item that no one seems to be mentioning. Where, pray tell, is all of this money coming from?

I don't know about you, but a lot of people don't have half a million dollars just lying around in case their children go off on very inadvisable travel plans along the borders of some crazy sand land countries. Where are all of these miraculous half a million dollar ransoms coming from? I mean, those two chicks who got themselves all locked up in North Korea because they were doing the same thing and hiking near the border of a country ruled by a lunatic, they just had Bill Clinton show up and that was that. (Who knew Slick Willie still had that kind of pull?) It didn't cost anything to get them out. But Iran wants money. And from what I can tell, they're going to get it. I just want to know where it comes from.

Please tell me that the United States doesn't have some sort of Stupid Ass Lost Hiker Fund or anything like that. And if we do, please tell me that it's funded by private donations of those sympathetic to stupid ass lost hikers. Don't tell me that it's taxpayer money or anything like that. Sorry that I'm not more sympathetic, but I don't have a lot of patience for things that are REALLY easy to avoid. Look at me! Here I am! NOT hiking anywhere NEAR Iran! See? Easy.

Sphere: Related Content

IH8THIS

So, the other day we discussed how the lovely state of California is currently trying to pass a law which will dictate what sort of sheets that hotels will be able to use. Thus, it should come as no shock to you that there are at least TEN people (all collecting a government salary with government benefits) and up to TWENTY people (depending on if there is an appeal) who are involved in determining who gets the personalized license plate that they've requested and who does not get the personalized license plate that they've requested. TEN people. Let's see what their day involves. I guarantee you that it will likely be absolutely nothing like the sort of days that you and I have.

According to NBC Bay Area, there is a four person team that reviews between 200-500 submissions for vanity plates every day. Between 20 and 40 of those plates are up for review by a separate 6-person team. Their decision as to whether or not the vanity plate is acceptable hinges on one question: "Would you find it offensive?" Oh, for cryin' out loud!

What is the point of this? I have no idea. And there are at least ten people who are being paid to participate in this nonsense. Look, I'm probably against any outright profanities on license plates. Probably. I'm not real sure how I feel about it because regardless of what is allowed on license plates, it just seems kind of futile to me considering that you can stick a bumper sticker on your car (right next to the license plate if you'd like!) that says damn near anything and no one can stop you. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to allow profanities. I still think I'm against it, but I don't know why.

Back to their rules. There are certain things that they simply don't allow on vanity plates. These are things that I had no idea about and I can't imagine that a lot of other people know anything about either. Like did you know "A few numbers are off limits for plates, such as 13, for its gang association." Thirteen has a gang association? Not just bad luck? How in the world would I know that unless I'm in a gang? And if I am in a gang, is that what I'm going to do? Go get a "13" on my license plate? Because all gangbangers make sure that their vehicle is properly registered and licensed with the state of California? Uh-huh. What else, you ask? Well, "Fourteen and 88 are banned for their connection to white supremacists." What connection is that? 14 and 88 and the KKK? I had no idea. Wait. Now that I know, am I supposed to be offended? 'Cause I'm not. I don't think that anyone is.

But wait. It gets better. They will let you explain yourself if there is a logical explanation. See, "'Ice' can be used for cocaine...So if you're an ice machine repair man, you can send in pictures of your truck with the name of the company." Right. Because if you're dealing coke, the best thing to do to help your business is to advertise it on your license plate! Seriously? What if I just happen to like Vanilla Ice, then what? Do I send them a picture of Robert Matthew Van Winkle with a heart drawn around his head? That just sounds silly.

And in that article over there at NBC, they have a list of 100 banned California vanity plates. I don't even get a lot of them. Like these:

• OQOOQOO Why is that bad? Are the Q's something bad? What is it?

• MERKTR I don't get that one. Merkin trader? No, that'd be weird. Hmmm...

• ETAMPON I don't really want to know what that is, but I would like to meet any pansy ass who would be offended by it.

• WTF HAXX I don't know what the HAXX stands for, but I'm OK with the WTF. I'd rather see that than the f-word wrote out. (And can everyone please just stop acting as if they never say the f-word. It's not some sort of a mortal sin to say 'wtf'. It's actually kind of polite if you think about it.)

I'm dying to know if the salaries of the at least ten people is easily surpassed by the amount of revenue that is brought in from having vanity plates. I'm hoping that it is. But I'm still guessing that you don't need ten (up to twenty) people to do that job. How could you?

Sphere: Related Content

Burning Man Bummer

If you were planning on going to Burning Man this year and you have not yet bought your ticket, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but apparently, for the first time in the 25-year history of this little hippie-fest gone mainstream, they have sold out.

Now, according to the Burning Blog (which is apparently all things Burning Man), "The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees the Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area, requires us to manage growth in line with the previous year’s population in order to comply with our use permit. As a result, Burning Man has exercised its oft-stated right to cap ticket sales." I'm not really quite sure what that means, but let me ask you something. How in the hell are you going to prevent people from going into the desert? I can't imagine that there is a fence all the way around the thing. What's to stop you from just going around or something?


Then I learned that the tickets to this thing are either $210 or $360! I have no idea what the difference in price gets you, but considering that you're out in the middle of the scorching Nevada desert for three days (or something like that), I should hope that it is something besides admittance and a T-shirt. The blog even says "The Black Rock Desert is an extremely remote, inhospitable environment with limited resources, minimal facilities, and few camping opportunities in the vicinity." Inhospitable? For $360?! For any amount of money, if I am staying somewhere, I'm going to have to insist on hospitable. Call me crazy.

And while I'm not sure just how many tickets were sold this year, I looked at past year's attendance records and the figure seems to be gradually growing to where it was around 49,000 in 2008. At $210 per ticket, that's $10,290,000!! Does ALL of that get paid to the Bureau of Land Management or whatever it is?! And that's just the low figure. If you figured that half of those tickets were $210 and the other half were $360, then that comes out to right around $13,965,000! Now I am dying to know how the financials of this whole thing work. It's expensive and fascinating!



The blog also encourages people who are selling their tickets to do so at face value or, better yet, to just give them away! I guess that is supposed to be in the "spirit" of Burning Man. Then again, if that's the "spirit" of Burning Man, I'm not sure what the charge is for in the first place. But I did a quick run down on San Francisco's craigslist and from what I can tell, not a lot of people are selling them. Those who were selling seemed to actually be abiding by the request to just sell them at face value. The interesting part is that those who were looking for tickets seemed to be willing to pay more than face value for them. I don't know if that is violating the "spirit" or not. I also noticed that quite a few people are willing to trade a lot of weed for Burning Man tickets. That seems to be totally within the "spirit".



It's an interesting outing, the Burning Man. Maybe I should look into a press pass or something. I have the feeling that a couple of days at that thing would give me blog fodder for weeks to come afterward. Just a hunchl

Sphere: Related Content

Who Cares WHERE He Found It?!

Here's a story that I don't understand at all. I feel like I'm missing an integral part of the whole thing because it doesn't make a lick of sense. It starts out cool and then becomes unbelievably ridiculous. I guess I'm just amazed at some of the opportunities in which certain people choose to be incredible jackasses. In this case, the jackasses seem to be the Rolling Meadows Police Department who got their uniforms in a wad when someone lied about where they found seventeen thousand dollars that they turned in.

According to the story in the Chicago Tribune, a one 54-year old Robert Adams "...found a Chase

Bank bag full of cash totaling about $17,000 near a Walgreens ATM in Midlothian". (By the way, I'm guessing that all of these places are somewhere around Chicago. It's their Tribune, after all.) Holy canoli! Seventeen grand! That's a lot of cheese. I have to admit that if I found that sum of money, I would be giving some serious thought to what I would be doing with it. I'd like to think that I'd do the right thing, but would I really? I have no idea. But for some reason, this guy, Mr. Adams, "...drove to Rolling Meadows and turned in the bag at a Chase Bank." OK. I don't get that, but at least he turned it in. It's seventeen grand, for cryin' out loud. What more do these people want? And apparently Mr. Adams "...later told police he found the cash outside a newspaper stand in Rolling Meadows."

OK, look, I don't know why he told the police that. But if it were my seventeen thousand dollars that I lost, I wouldn't give a fat rat's ass where someone SAID that they found it. Someone gives me my seventeen grand back and they can say that they found it wherever they want. Where they actually found it is the least of my concerns after I have received it back. Funnily enough, I'm like the only one who sees it this way because the police decided that he needed to be fined for his horrible misdeed. Wait. What now?

That's right. He was FINED $500 for filing a false report! And look, I don't know why he did it. According to him, he said "...he felt more comfortable turning the cash in to Rolling Meadows officials and filing the report with Rolling Meadows police." OK. I don't get that, but I'm OK with it. He says that "...It was a hot day and he just wanted to get home". I totally get that. Whatever. Seriously, who the hell cares WHERE he found it?! He RETURNED seventeen THOUSAND dollars and he was under NO obligation to do so. And he was really fined five hundred bucks?!

What is wrong with you people? Why couldn't that have just been let go? This is Illinois, where four of the last seven governors have ended up in JAIL for various convictions for corruption, bribery and the like. And they're going to get all bent out of shape and actually fine someone $500 for returning a boatload of money but not being totally honest about where he found it because he said it was hot outside?! Note to self: If ever running across large sums of wayward cash whilst in Illinois, keep for self. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT turn it in...especially if it's hot outside.

Sphere: Related Content

I Don't Know What Not To Like

I'm not quite sure why I'm going to take this time to talk about Newt Gingrich because he will never be President. But it does seem like he might be positioning himself for a run at something, so I thought that I'd just get my dislike of him out of the way.

While I know that intellectually, a candidate's personal life shouldn't factor into whether or not the position that they're running for can be performed, I have a hard time getting to that point emotionally. Newt's a cheater. No one likes a cheater. And he didn't just cheat on one of his wives. He cheated on both of them. No one likes a serial cheater. Not even a little bit. Does his being a cheater impact how he would do his job if elected? Intellectually, I wouldn't think that it would. Emotionally? It seems like whatever he said would not be able to be trusted. Especially when he gives lame excuses for why he cheated.

Let's go over to New York Magazine for an explanation of his cheating. "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate." That's right. He was passionate about 'Merika, so that's why he cheated. Intellectually, should that matter? Considering that it's a dumbass excuse and is not very intellectual? Maybe it should!

Then there's the latest dust up that he's answering for. According to Politico, he had "...a “revolving charge account” at Tiffany and Company" with a liability somewhere in between $250,001 and $500,000. At freaking Tiffany's. Tiffany's, known equally for their breakfast as well as their jewelry, is about as uppity as you can get. Now, it could be that he has this account because he buys his wedding rings in bulk. But regardless, does anyone really need over $250 grand in jewelry? I don't think that they do! Should that disqualify someone from being a legitimate candidate for office? I want to say yes, but why does that feel wrong?!

He kind of made a good point on Sunday when he said that "...the spending was his "private decision." He does have a point. He can do whatever he wants with his money, no matter how idiotic I think it may be. (Or no matter how idiotic it just is. And come on! Who needs $250,000 in jewelry? No one! There are SO many other things that one could purchase with that kind of cash! So many BETTER things!) He also claims to be debt free. Should it make a difference if he is able to manage his money to where he incurs a debt and then pays it off? That's sort of the point of having good credit, isn't it? I'm so confused!

Let's review: I can't decide if people who are despicable individuals should be automatically discounted from running for or fulfilling a public office. Emotionally, I say screw 'em. Intellectually, I say it maybe shouldn't matter. Why is emotional me winning?! Why isn't intellectual me dominating this issue?! What is wrong with me? Am I missing something?

Sphere: Related Content

Help Out Japan

Hey. Japan is effed up right now. Fortunately, this time it wasn't caused by the US out of retaliation for an ill advised sneak attack at the beginning of a World War. But that's really not much of a consolation when your island country has been struck by an earthquake which has now been measured at a whopping 9.0 on the Richter Scale. And they're still being constantly bombarded with aftershocks that are between 5.0 and 7.0. Those are aftershocks. If an earthquake of that size hit anywhere in the US, it is all that would be talked about on the news. That is a HUGE quake. And the Japanese are experiencing multitudes of those huge quakes almost constantly right now. And as if the earthquake wasn't enough, there was a massive tsunami which only made things a bazillion times worse. I don't get that. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Is it necessary? I guess it is, but it's definitely rude on the part of Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of this sort of thing.

You know what I find interesting about this disaster in particular? The people of Japan have had their lives ruined in the blink of an eye. (Well, two blinks. The first blink was the earthquake and the second blink was the tsunami.) And you know what makes this disaster different from other ones that have happened in recent memory? There's no looting. There's no despicable behavior like that. I'm impressed. It's a sociological phenomenon that should be studied. No looting. Amazing. Way to go, Japan. And as you know, I'm not one for a lot of compassion. That's why, when these disasters strike, as soon as the looting begins, that's when my compassion goes away. If people have the energy to break the glass on store windows and haul out big screen TVs and 57 pairs of Nike shoes, I figure that they can use that energy to help themselves and that I really shouldn't interfere. Not to mention that I lose a lot of respect for anyone like that.

But not in this case. In this case, these people need help and they're deserving of it. (Please don't judge me based on that sentence. You know what I mean.) And it is rare that I ever advocate just giving away your money, but in this case, I'm going to suggest that if you can spare a few bucks, that you donate it to the American Red Cross so that they can get some help out to Japan. If you're not a fan of the American Red Cross (even though I cannot imagine why you wouldn't be), then donate some to an organization that you feel would be of assistance in helping out the people in Japan. Just do something if you can. You'd want someone to help you out, wouldn't you?

Sphere: Related Content

Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

Sphere: Related Content