Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain's Pension and Family Security Plan...Lame
Although a day later than promised, McCain finally delivered his new financial rescue plan strategy, with 5 basic points :
1. Lower taxes for seniors tapping their retirement accounts and suspend rules that force seniors to liquidate their accounts during economic crisis. (1/2 New)
2. Accelerate the tax write-offs for those forced to sell at at a loss in the current market. (New)
3. Reduce capital gains taxes for '09 and '10.
4. His Homeowner Resurgence Plan, where mortgages would be purchased directly from homeowners and mortgage services and replaced with manageable fixed-rate mortgages.
5. For workers, eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
---
While 2-5 don't seem all that bad, other than the fact that #3 is fairly moot at the time being, given the general lack of capital gains being realized these days.
Where I do have a problem is with number 1.
while not a stock market expert, I understand that when there is a massive sell-off, stocks fall, and when there is a massive injection of capital, stocks rise. So with that in mind, if a large demographic has incentive to sell off their holdings, based on lower taxes, why would we expect anything less than for stocks to fall.
In a time when we have seen the DOW plummet so significantly, in such a small amount of time, do we really need to create incentives that would splash fuel on the fire?
...as you were
1. Lower taxes for seniors tapping their retirement accounts and suspend rules that force seniors to liquidate their accounts during economic crisis. (1/2 New)
2. Accelerate the tax write-offs for those forced to sell at at a loss in the current market. (New)
3. Reduce capital gains taxes for '09 and '10.
4. His Homeowner Resurgence Plan, where mortgages would be purchased directly from homeowners and mortgage services and replaced with manageable fixed-rate mortgages.
5. For workers, eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
---
While 2-5 don't seem all that bad, other than the fact that #3 is fairly moot at the time being, given the general lack of capital gains being realized these days.
Where I do have a problem is with number 1.
while not a stock market expert, I understand that when there is a massive sell-off, stocks fall, and when there is a massive injection of capital, stocks rise. So with that in mind, if a large demographic has incentive to sell off their holdings, based on lower taxes, why would we expect anything less than for stocks to fall.
In a time when we have seen the DOW plummet so significantly, in such a small amount of time, do we really need to create incentives that would splash fuel on the fire?
...as you were
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Why McCain wont win over the informed independent
So much for the Straight Talk Express...
In that past 24 hours, both Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin have aggressively attacked Barack Obama on his record for not voting to support funding the troops in Iraq.
While this is true, it is spun in such a despicable fashion, that it makes me sick, and makes me, a thoughtful moderate, want to fight against the McCain campaign even more.
The reality is, both Obama, and McCain have voted against legislation that *included* funding for the troops fighting in Iraq.
Obama voted against one piece of legislation, because it did not include a time-table for withdrawal, and McCain voted against another because it DID have a time-table for troop withdrawal.
And the simple reality is, it would be political suicide for any politician to outright say "I don't support our troops, and don't want to make sure they have what they need to stay safe in Iraq"
Now, as an educated and informed voter, I understand where both candidates were coming from, and how they both took different views on how they can *best* support our troops. And I don't possess the audacity to question either's Patriotism on the subject.
The part that drives me absolutely crazy is the fact that the McCain campaign is so self-righteous to presume that their own perception of how to best support the troops, is the only way to support the troops. They are apparently too stubborn to appreciate that Obama thinks the best way to support our troops, is to quickly work towards removing them from harm's way, by bringing a responsible end to the effort in Iraq, and bringing our troops home.
And if you recall during the primary season, Ron Paul, a Republican who opposed the
Iraq war effort more than any other candidate, on either side mind you, somehow managed to bring in more contributions from active military personnel than any other candidate.
So for McCain and his hench-women to attempt to prey on the uninformed independent voters by twisting the facts in their favor, is nothing more than sad, pathetic, and manipulative. But fortunately, I suspect the impact will be a negative one for the McCain campaign.
So to John, Sarah, and Cindy... do what you must, but know that voters like myself are onto you. And please stop blaming the main-stream media for calling you out on these remarkable tactics. They are not driving your campaign into the ground, you clearly have the wherewithal to do that all by yourselves.
And ironically, since the McCain campaign is smart enough to know that it cant win this election on any important issue, they have turned to attacks on Obama's character. But what will the voters think about McCain's character when they catch onto these underhanded tricks?
...as you were
In that past 24 hours, both Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin have aggressively attacked Barack Obama on his record for not voting to support funding the troops in Iraq.
While this is true, it is spun in such a despicable fashion, that it makes me sick, and makes me, a thoughtful moderate, want to fight against the McCain campaign even more.
The reality is, both Obama, and McCain have voted against legislation that *included* funding for the troops fighting in Iraq.
Obama voted against one piece of legislation, because it did not include a time-table for withdrawal, and McCain voted against another because it DID have a time-table for troop withdrawal.
And the simple reality is, it would be political suicide for any politician to outright say "I don't support our troops, and don't want to make sure they have what they need to stay safe in Iraq"
Now, as an educated and informed voter, I understand where both candidates were coming from, and how they both took different views on how they can *best* support our troops. And I don't possess the audacity to question either's Patriotism on the subject.
The part that drives me absolutely crazy is the fact that the McCain campaign is so self-righteous to presume that their own perception of how to best support the troops, is the only way to support the troops. They are apparently too stubborn to appreciate that Obama thinks the best way to support our troops, is to quickly work towards removing them from harm's way, by bringing a responsible end to the effort in Iraq, and bringing our troops home.
And if you recall during the primary season, Ron Paul, a Republican who opposed the
Iraq war effort more than any other candidate, on either side mind you, somehow managed to bring in more contributions from active military personnel than any other candidate.
So for McCain and his hench-women to attempt to prey on the uninformed independent voters by twisting the facts in their favor, is nothing more than sad, pathetic, and manipulative. But fortunately, I suspect the impact will be a negative one for the McCain campaign.
So to John, Sarah, and Cindy... do what you must, but know that voters like myself are onto you. And please stop blaming the main-stream media for calling you out on these remarkable tactics. They are not driving your campaign into the ground, you clearly have the wherewithal to do that all by yourselves.
And ironically, since the McCain campaign is smart enough to know that it cant win this election on any important issue, they have turned to attacks on Obama's character. But what will the voters think about McCain's character when they catch onto these underhanded tricks?
...as you were
Sunday, October 5, 2008
An important thing to note about John McCain
During the final month of the presidential campaign, its going to be very challenging for the average American to sift through the mud that is sure to come from either side.
And with McCain behind in the polls, I expect we will see even more mud-slinging and attack ads from his camp.
As most of us know, its very hard, if not impossible to get a true sense of what a candidate will do once they actually end up in the oval office.
For those of you who recall Bush's 2000 campaign, you know that he has clearly drifted from the promises he made before taking office. Some might say that 9/11 changed things, and that may be true, but ultimately, very few of us got what we expected from our 43rd president.
With that in mind, I would like to revisit a direct quote from John McCain's acceptance speech, at the recent Republican National Convention.
---
"I've fought the big spenders...
(APPLAUSE)
I've fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on
things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending
pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I
will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know
their names.
---
Now the above statement is something most of us, as Americans can get on board with, as its one of those bi-partisan issues that most of us agree could use some work.
It basically means that if any member of Congress tries to add a multi-million dollar sweetener, or "pork" to a piece of multi-part legislation, he will veto the entire bill, no questions asked.
The Alaskan "Bridge to No Where" is a great example of this. Basically a several hundred million dollar transportation bridge, paid for by the federal government, and the taxes of all American's across the country, which would only benefit a few thousand locals in Alaska.
Not only does McCain promise to swiftly brandish the veto pen in all circumstances like these, he also promises to effectively embarrass the congressman or congresswoman who tried to sneak the ear-mark onto the bill, so the whole country will know exactly who is trying to horde federal taxpayer funds, for the good of their own constituency.
Here's the problem :
The recent financial rescue bill, which passed congress this past week, and was signed by President Bush, contained approximately $140 billion in so-called pork sweeteners, in order to create a bill that would stand a better chance of passing congress than the earlier version of the bill which failed to pass earlier in the week.
So basically a staggering $700 billion rescue bill, was forced to increase in size by 20% in ear-marks, in order to convince a few corrupt politicians to vote for a bill they didn't believe in, in the first place...
Here are a just a few nauseating examples of some of the ear-mark additions to the most recent financial bailout bill :
-- millions of pork for Hollywood producers
-- millions more for stockcar race track owners
-- more than $192 million for Caribbean rum producers
-- over $200 million for Alaskan fisherman
So given the facts of the bill, one would assume that the Maverick, John McCain, would stand by his promise, and while unable to veto the bill (since that is a power of only the American president), would at least vote against the bill, showing his disgust for its wasteful contents, and maybe even have a press conference to let us all know which members congress changed their votes thanks to these additions.
As most of you already know... McCain voted yes on the piece of legislation, effectively going against his promise and stance on earmark spending.
So much for the Straight-Talk Express, so much for sticking to your guns, and so much for leaving with any hope that you are full of anything but empty promises, and sound-bytes.
...as you were
And with McCain behind in the polls, I expect we will see even more mud-slinging and attack ads from his camp.
As most of us know, its very hard, if not impossible to get a true sense of what a candidate will do once they actually end up in the oval office.
For those of you who recall Bush's 2000 campaign, you know that he has clearly drifted from the promises he made before taking office. Some might say that 9/11 changed things, and that may be true, but ultimately, very few of us got what we expected from our 43rd president.
With that in mind, I would like to revisit a direct quote from John McCain's acceptance speech, at the recent Republican National Convention.
---
"I've fought the big spenders...
(APPLAUSE)
I've fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on
things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending
pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I
will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know
their names.
---
Now the above statement is something most of us, as Americans can get on board with, as its one of those bi-partisan issues that most of us agree could use some work.
It basically means that if any member of Congress tries to add a multi-million dollar sweetener, or "pork" to a piece of multi-part legislation, he will veto the entire bill, no questions asked.
The Alaskan "Bridge to No Where" is a great example of this. Basically a several hundred million dollar transportation bridge, paid for by the federal government, and the taxes of all American's across the country, which would only benefit a few thousand locals in Alaska.
Not only does McCain promise to swiftly brandish the veto pen in all circumstances like these, he also promises to effectively embarrass the congressman or congresswoman who tried to sneak the ear-mark onto the bill, so the whole country will know exactly who is trying to horde federal taxpayer funds, for the good of their own constituency.
Here's the problem :
The recent financial rescue bill, which passed congress this past week, and was signed by President Bush, contained approximately $140 billion in so-called pork sweeteners, in order to create a bill that would stand a better chance of passing congress than the earlier version of the bill which failed to pass earlier in the week.
So basically a staggering $700 billion rescue bill, was forced to increase in size by 20% in ear-marks, in order to convince a few corrupt politicians to vote for a bill they didn't believe in, in the first place...
Here are a just a few nauseating examples of some of the ear-mark additions to the most recent financial bailout bill :
-- millions of pork for Hollywood producers
-- millions more for stockcar race track owners
-- more than $192 million for Caribbean rum producers
-- over $200 million for Alaskan fisherman
So given the facts of the bill, one would assume that the Maverick, John McCain, would stand by his promise, and while unable to veto the bill (since that is a power of only the American president), would at least vote against the bill, showing his disgust for its wasteful contents, and maybe even have a press conference to let us all know which members congress changed their votes thanks to these additions.
As most of you already know... McCain voted yes on the piece of legislation, effectively going against his promise and stance on earmark spending.
So much for the Straight-Talk Express, so much for sticking to your guns, and so much for leaving with any hope that you are full of anything but empty promises, and sound-bytes.
...as you were
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Financial Bailout : My Thoughts...
So after careful consideration, I personally believe the $700+ billion bailout plan is the wrong course of action. It goes against everything we believe in terms of capitalism, and the free market.
While unfortunately, the situation we are faced with was created due to unregulated and unrestrained capitalism at its finest, a socialize bailout is not the answer. We need to let the market auto-correct, as it certainly will, and introduce a greater level of regulation to the world of finance as we move forward, just like what we see with other regulated industries, such as insurance.
Without regulation, why would the capitalists on wall street do anything less than try to maximize profits, via leveraging assets 60-80 times over, effectively turning wall street into a casino.
Well guess what, the real estate market crapped out, and they lost everything on a collection of risky bets.
Unfortunately the casualties of such a massive failure will be widespread, and felt my most, if not all of us, but I believe that is the way it should be.
If artificial interest rates, and artificial valuation got us into this mess, why would anyone think that an artificial solution, in the form of a socialized bailout package, estimated to cost between 7-10K in tax payer contributions, per American family...be the right solution?
On a more micro scale, if a company runs its business poorly, it will be forced out of business by a better business, whether bigger or smaller, so why should it not be the same with the likes of AIG, Fanny Mae, Washington Mutual, Freddie Mac, etc?
Why do these companies, who have proven to be a failed business model, deserve a second chance at the expense of all of us?
Call it a lack of empathy, but I think the people responsible for making bad or risky decisions, should be held accountable for those decisions. Not only the executives at these mega-banks, but also investors in those banks, and home-owners who got in over their heads with interest only mortgages.
About a year ago, I lost about 50% of an investment I made into a mortgage company. While it sucks, I took my losses like a man, sold out, and avoided loosing the other 50% before it got worse.
I am sorry, but if a consumer is faced with foreclosure, then that is the market telling you that you haven't earned the right, and don't deserve to be a home-owner at this time, at least not at the level of home you are currently in.
I have paid my mortgages on time, every time, for the past 6 years, why should I be forced into investing into this rubbish?
What the government is asking us to do as tax-payers is unfair, and unjustified, and sets a terrible president.
Will things be worse in the short-term... maybe....probably, but until we get back to naturally market regulated levels, we wont be out of the woods, so lets just rip the band-aid off, get it over with, and rebuild from there.
Instead of coughing up 700+ billion in tax-payer money, basically calling it a tax-payer investment, without really knowing how that money will be spent, and why.... let the values of these failing entities fall to a level where they become appealing to a non-struggling, better managed entity, who sees the value in scooping up assets dirt cheap, with a high probability of a substantial return on investment.
The market has a way of rewarding good practices, and punishing unethical and often greed-ridden practices.
Let me paint a comparable picture for everyone, on a micro-level, just so we all know what this bailout plans to do :
If someone has a $30,000 BMW, that has plummeted in value, to lets just say $20,000, that they cant afford to continue paying for, is it fair for the government to "force" another buyer (the taxpayer) to purchase said vehicle for $30K, knowing full well that is worth $10K less than that? Hell no!!
Who's to say the value wont plummet further? Why should the seller get a free pass, earn back artificial equity on a poor investment, leaving the buyer with an asset they paid way to much for, that they may not ever see a return on.
Here is what the free-market dictates should happen...
The seller would be forced to reduce the sale price, to something that more buyers will find appealing, lets say 18-20K. So if purchased, that buyer would now has ownership of a balanced item in terms of cost/value.
If that is not an option, the seller can relinquish the asset to the bank, or worst case... file for bankruptcy.
Any questions... does the bailout still sound like a good plan?
...as you were
While unfortunately, the situation we are faced with was created due to unregulated and unrestrained capitalism at its finest, a socialize bailout is not the answer. We need to let the market auto-correct, as it certainly will, and introduce a greater level of regulation to the world of finance as we move forward, just like what we see with other regulated industries, such as insurance.
Without regulation, why would the capitalists on wall street do anything less than try to maximize profits, via leveraging assets 60-80 times over, effectively turning wall street into a casino.
Well guess what, the real estate market crapped out, and they lost everything on a collection of risky bets.
Unfortunately the casualties of such a massive failure will be widespread, and felt my most, if not all of us, but I believe that is the way it should be.
If artificial interest rates, and artificial valuation got us into this mess, why would anyone think that an artificial solution, in the form of a socialized bailout package, estimated to cost between 7-10K in tax payer contributions, per American family...be the right solution?
On a more micro scale, if a company runs its business poorly, it will be forced out of business by a better business, whether bigger or smaller, so why should it not be the same with the likes of AIG, Fanny Mae, Washington Mutual, Freddie Mac, etc?
Why do these companies, who have proven to be a failed business model, deserve a second chance at the expense of all of us?
Call it a lack of empathy, but I think the people responsible for making bad or risky decisions, should be held accountable for those decisions. Not only the executives at these mega-banks, but also investors in those banks, and home-owners who got in over their heads with interest only mortgages.
About a year ago, I lost about 50% of an investment I made into a mortgage company. While it sucks, I took my losses like a man, sold out, and avoided loosing the other 50% before it got worse.
I am sorry, but if a consumer is faced with foreclosure, then that is the market telling you that you haven't earned the right, and don't deserve to be a home-owner at this time, at least not at the level of home you are currently in.
I have paid my mortgages on time, every time, for the past 6 years, why should I be forced into investing into this rubbish?
What the government is asking us to do as tax-payers is unfair, and unjustified, and sets a terrible president.
Will things be worse in the short-term... maybe....probably, but until we get back to naturally market regulated levels, we wont be out of the woods, so lets just rip the band-aid off, get it over with, and rebuild from there.
Instead of coughing up 700+ billion in tax-payer money, basically calling it a tax-payer investment, without really knowing how that money will be spent, and why.... let the values of these failing entities fall to a level where they become appealing to a non-struggling, better managed entity, who sees the value in scooping up assets dirt cheap, with a high probability of a substantial return on investment.
The market has a way of rewarding good practices, and punishing unethical and often greed-ridden practices.
Let me paint a comparable picture for everyone, on a micro-level, just so we all know what this bailout plans to do :
If someone has a $30,000 BMW, that has plummeted in value, to lets just say $20,000, that they cant afford to continue paying for, is it fair for the government to "force" another buyer (the taxpayer) to purchase said vehicle for $30K, knowing full well that is worth $10K less than that? Hell no!!
Who's to say the value wont plummet further? Why should the seller get a free pass, earn back artificial equity on a poor investment, leaving the buyer with an asset they paid way to much for, that they may not ever see a return on.
Here is what the free-market dictates should happen...
The seller would be forced to reduce the sale price, to something that more buyers will find appealing, lets say 18-20K. So if purchased, that buyer would now has ownership of a balanced item in terms of cost/value.
If that is not an option, the seller can relinquish the asset to the bank, or worst case... file for bankruptcy.
Any questions... does the bailout still sound like a good plan?
...as you were
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Let's apply what we've learned these past 5 years...
Does anyone think this whole financial bailout situation is eerily similar to the rush to war with Iraq?
Does it not feel like the fear-mongers that be are pressuring congress and the American people to rush into a "proposed" fix for the crisis at hand?
Does it not feel like we are on the brink of making another huge mistake which could easily cascade across generations much like the decision to invade Iraq?
Would it really be that bad to not finalize a bailout strategy by the end of this week?
Should this nation be rushing through a 700 million dollar plan to band-aid the current crisis?
After the blunders this administration has had over the past 8 years, wouldn't it almost be statistically prudent to do the opposite of whatever the bush administration recommends?
Does each American family really need the burden of shouldering 7-10K worth of bailout burden to "hopefully" fix this issue?
Is it possible that the free market should just let these companies fail, deal with the repercussions as they present themselves, and not get the govt involved to such a massive degree?
Isn't it funny how much more government meddling we have seen under a republican controlled administration who is so well known for its small government philosophies?
Is anyone even paying attention, or would that be too much trouble for today's onDemand mentality of the American people?
hmmmm.
Does it not feel like the fear-mongers that be are pressuring congress and the American people to rush into a "proposed" fix for the crisis at hand?
Does it not feel like we are on the brink of making another huge mistake which could easily cascade across generations much like the decision to invade Iraq?
Would it really be that bad to not finalize a bailout strategy by the end of this week?
Should this nation be rushing through a 700 million dollar plan to band-aid the current crisis?
After the blunders this administration has had over the past 8 years, wouldn't it almost be statistically prudent to do the opposite of whatever the bush administration recommends?
Does each American family really need the burden of shouldering 7-10K worth of bailout burden to "hopefully" fix this issue?
Is it possible that the free market should just let these companies fail, deal with the repercussions as they present themselves, and not get the govt involved to such a massive degree?
Isn't it funny how much more government meddling we have seen under a republican controlled administration who is so well known for its small government philosophies?
Is anyone even paying attention, or would that be too much trouble for today's onDemand mentality of the American people?
hmmmm.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Creepy, and Completely Unnecessary!
It seems that people have this inherent desire to decorate. I sometimes wonder if the months are riddled with holidays for no other reason than to allow the masses of middle-America to get their decorating fix on.
And when decorating a room, or a cake is no longer enough, pet owners quickly turn to decorating their cats and dogs, rappers turn to decorating their teeth, and parents turn to decorating their children...
Now perhaps its just me, but I find it completely creepy when a newborn infant, or even a toddler is dressed up against their will, or even their knowledge...for a cheap Halloween laugh. If infants weren't so helpless and generally complacent, I doubt they would stand for such ridicule.
Regardless...to satiate my morbid curiosity, I looked to the internet to see what the latest styles and trends are in the realm of infant costumes, here are some of the more disturbing options available today :
1. The White-Trash Yard Flamingo
For those of you who are looking to tick off the HOA, simply dress your child up in this gem, place him or her out in the yard, and wait by the mailbox for the cease and desist that will likely arive within 5-7 business days.
2. The Yellow Cocoon (AKA Banana...)
This outfit requires a little more care, but if you are diligent to water daily, you will be simply tickled with joy by your bouncing baby butterfly that will likely emerge by Thanksgiving.
3. The Lobster Infant
This one has The Little Mermaid's Sebastian rolling in his shell. How could you not find yourself filled with joy as you watch the 6 additional lifeless legs drag across the floor as though your infant was debilitated by a massive bone-crushing object.
4. Humpdty Dumpty Infant
Not only will your infant put the "dump", in "dumpty"... but to continue the theme in your own home, simply place Humpty precariously high on a staircase banister, and see how long it takes junior to have a great fall...
5. Rock-A-Bye Baby
I'm still not sure if this is suppose to be Elvis, or the Legendary "Running Man" Stalker... Dynamo! The webbed fingers are a nice touch regardless...
6. Woopie Cushion Bunting Infant
Imagine the delight your family can share when you quickly slide junior under Grandma Ethel's seat cushion without her knowledge, as she prepares to take a load off.
7. Little Trees Car Freshener Infant
"Hey, what's that savory scent exuding from your vehicle?! ...Oh look, its just little Johnny dangling from the windshield!"
Not only will your car reap the rewards of that unmistakable scent, but think of all the time you could save buckling junior into the cumbersome child-seat. But wait, there's more! When simply hung from the rear-view mirror instead, your precious infant will always be in view as he or she completely obstructs your peripheral vision.
8. Baby Captain Hook Bunting
(Dual-peg legs sold separately...)
and finally...
9. The Sheep Infant
What a fabulous metaphor for those of you who have come to grips with the life of mediocrity the lies ahead for your young one, what better way to showcase your lack of expectation by dressing your child up as a sheep.
(also available in black)
..as you were
And when decorating a room, or a cake is no longer enough, pet owners quickly turn to decorating their cats and dogs, rappers turn to decorating their teeth, and parents turn to decorating their children...
Now perhaps its just me, but I find it completely creepy when a newborn infant, or even a toddler is dressed up against their will, or even their knowledge...for a cheap Halloween laugh. If infants weren't so helpless and generally complacent, I doubt they would stand for such ridicule.
Regardless...to satiate my morbid curiosity, I looked to the internet to see what the latest styles and trends are in the realm of infant costumes, here are some of the more disturbing options available today :
1. The White-Trash Yard Flamingo
For those of you who are looking to tick off the HOA, simply dress your child up in this gem, place him or her out in the yard, and wait by the mailbox for the cease and desist that will likely arive within 5-7 business days.
2. The Yellow Cocoon (AKA Banana...)
This outfit requires a little more care, but if you are diligent to water daily, you will be simply tickled with joy by your bouncing baby butterfly that will likely emerge by Thanksgiving.
3. The Lobster Infant
This one has The Little Mermaid's Sebastian rolling in his shell. How could you not find yourself filled with joy as you watch the 6 additional lifeless legs drag across the floor as though your infant was debilitated by a massive bone-crushing object.
4. Humpdty Dumpty Infant
Not only will your infant put the "dump", in "dumpty"... but to continue the theme in your own home, simply place Humpty precariously high on a staircase banister, and see how long it takes junior to have a great fall...
5. Rock-A-Bye Baby
I'm still not sure if this is suppose to be Elvis, or the Legendary "Running Man" Stalker... Dynamo! The webbed fingers are a nice touch regardless...
6. Woopie Cushion Bunting Infant
Imagine the delight your family can share when you quickly slide junior under Grandma Ethel's seat cushion without her knowledge, as she prepares to take a load off.
7. Little Trees Car Freshener Infant
"Hey, what's that savory scent exuding from your vehicle?! ...Oh look, its just little Johnny dangling from the windshield!"
Not only will your car reap the rewards of that unmistakable scent, but think of all the time you could save buckling junior into the cumbersome child-seat. But wait, there's more! When simply hung from the rear-view mirror instead, your precious infant will always be in view as he or she completely obstructs your peripheral vision.
8. Baby Captain Hook Bunting
(Dual-peg legs sold separately...)
and finally...
9. The Sheep Infant
What a fabulous metaphor for those of you who have come to grips with the life of mediocrity the lies ahead for your young one, what better way to showcase your lack of expectation by dressing your child up as a sheep.
(also available in black)
..as you were
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Over the limit...Under Arrest!
So I'm guessing you have all seen that PSA against drunk-driving... where the 3 guys get busted for DUIs, and their vehicles are filled with their alcohol of choice, so when the door opens, or the window rolls down, it comes rushing out all over the officer.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a strong campaign, and well executed, there are just a few things that caught my eye :
First off, the execution is extremely stereotypical in its depiction of the 3 characters. The not-so-clean-cut guy, driving around in a beater truck, with a mesh hat, is showcased as driving light beer, the successful business man had a big night of dirty martinis, and the 3rd guy who doesn’t really come as flaming to any degree (but might as well be gay)…. Spills out a car load of cosmopolitans…
So 3 white guys, with 3 drinks unique flavors… In my opinion, if they were all about including the cosmo, maybe they could have considered using a woman. Women get DUIs too you know!
Secondly, Can you imagine the dismay of the guy who got assigned to the Cosmo car. I’m guessing he was just thrilled about the shit-storm his real life buddies would inevitably dish out when they happened across the commercial during a gathering for Monday Night Football.
I know it’s a serious subject, but I personally think they should have added a little more of a comical aspect.
They could have one guy decked out in a parka, with a scarf, and a wool cap, maybe with a slight shiver….sitting in an avalanche of frozen pina colada, with a few limes here and there, so people knew it was pina colada, and not simply snow.
Or better yet! They could have had what looked like a pool of pink cosmopolitan, but when the car door opened, rather than spilling out, the entire mass could have simply jiggled back and forth, as though the guy had just come from a wild night of jell-o shots. Maybe he could have been wearing one of those college acronym sweatshirts, just to drive home the fraternity cliché a bit more.
As you were…
Don't get me wrong, I think its a strong campaign, and well executed, there are just a few things that caught my eye :
First off, the execution is extremely stereotypical in its depiction of the 3 characters. The not-so-clean-cut guy, driving around in a beater truck, with a mesh hat, is showcased as driving light beer, the successful business man had a big night of dirty martinis, and the 3rd guy who doesn’t really come as flaming to any degree (but might as well be gay)…. Spills out a car load of cosmopolitans…
So 3 white guys, with 3 drinks unique flavors… In my opinion, if they were all about including the cosmo, maybe they could have considered using a woman. Women get DUIs too you know!
Secondly, Can you imagine the dismay of the guy who got assigned to the Cosmo car. I’m guessing he was just thrilled about the shit-storm his real life buddies would inevitably dish out when they happened across the commercial during a gathering for Monday Night Football.
I know it’s a serious subject, but I personally think they should have added a little more of a comical aspect.
They could have one guy decked out in a parka, with a scarf, and a wool cap, maybe with a slight shiver….sitting in an avalanche of frozen pina colada, with a few limes here and there, so people knew it was pina colada, and not simply snow.
Or better yet! They could have had what looked like a pool of pink cosmopolitan, but when the car door opened, rather than spilling out, the entire mass could have simply jiggled back and forth, as though the guy had just come from a wild night of jell-o shots. Maybe he could have been wearing one of those college acronym sweatshirts, just to drive home the fraternity cliché a bit more.
As you were…
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
I guess my days of abusing and neglecting Frazier are over!
So I just got back from a quick trip over to circuit city, to pick up a wall mount system for one of my TVs.
As I often do, I decided to take Frazier with me, cause like most dogs, not too many things top a good car ride when you are dog...
I knew pretty much exactly what I was looking for, and I was honestly in and out of the store in 10-15 minutes tops! (5:10-5:25pm)
Even so, I left the rear 2 windows down about 4 inches or so, so keep the air circulating, like I always do.
As I was loading my purchase into my car, I was approached by a smug rental cop security goofball as he communicated via his radio to an un-seen party.
What the F I thought... as my mind raced through all the possible misdemeanors and or felonies I may have unknowingly commited, as my heart started to race.
"Sir... is that your dog?"
"yes..."
"Well...some concern has been expressed regarding his well-being... he looks pretty hot back there, and he is panting"
"I just called them off, but animal control was on the way, and you could have been looking at $1000 fine if it was determined that the animal was distressed..."
Oh for fuck sakes!...
At this point I went from confused to livid. Did some jack-ass with nothing better to do actually take the time to create a scene within the 10-15 minutes I was in the store?!
Clearly this guy and whomever made the initial call for concern have not had much interaction with dogs.... YES! dogs pant...they look hot, but trust me, he is well taken care of...
You know what though...if it will ease your uneducated mind, I will rush him home, and get him into a full bathtub of ice cubes, much like Jean Claude Van Damme would do in Universal Soldier when he began to dangerously over-heat...
So stupid!
Maybe... MAYBE I would consider filing a complaint if I walked into a shopping center, saw a dog in a car, at high noon, with the windows rolled up, and then came out 60-90 minutes later, only to see the same scenario with the dog in the same car, with the windows up... but come on...10 minutes, at 5:30pm, with 2 windows down.... give me a friggin' break!
If what I did is in violation of Denver animal control laws, then what are my alternatives, keep him inside at all time, never satiate his desires to run errands with me?!
Is it a violation to take a dog on a walk during the summer months? Where is the line drawn?
This is such bullshit! I fully intend to get on the horn with Denver Animal control during business hours tomorrow to get to the bottom of this crap.
I am so aggravated! Even though a fine was averted this time, I still feel extremely violated.
...as you were
As I often do, I decided to take Frazier with me, cause like most dogs, not too many things top a good car ride when you are dog...
I knew pretty much exactly what I was looking for, and I was honestly in and out of the store in 10-15 minutes tops! (5:10-5:25pm)
Even so, I left the rear 2 windows down about 4 inches or so, so keep the air circulating, like I always do.
As I was loading my purchase into my car, I was approached by a smug rental cop security goofball as he communicated via his radio to an un-seen party.
What the F I thought... as my mind raced through all the possible misdemeanors and or felonies I may have unknowingly commited, as my heart started to race.
"Sir... is that your dog?"
"yes..."
"Well...some concern has been expressed regarding his well-being... he looks pretty hot back there, and he is panting"
"I just called them off, but animal control was on the way, and you could have been looking at $1000 fine if it was determined that the animal was distressed..."
Oh for fuck sakes!...
At this point I went from confused to livid. Did some jack-ass with nothing better to do actually take the time to create a scene within the 10-15 minutes I was in the store?!
Clearly this guy and whomever made the initial call for concern have not had much interaction with dogs.... YES! dogs pant...they look hot, but trust me, he is well taken care of...
You know what though...if it will ease your uneducated mind, I will rush him home, and get him into a full bathtub of ice cubes, much like Jean Claude Van Damme would do in Universal Soldier when he began to dangerously over-heat...
So stupid!
Maybe... MAYBE I would consider filing a complaint if I walked into a shopping center, saw a dog in a car, at high noon, with the windows rolled up, and then came out 60-90 minutes later, only to see the same scenario with the dog in the same car, with the windows up... but come on...10 minutes, at 5:30pm, with 2 windows down.... give me a friggin' break!
If what I did is in violation of Denver animal control laws, then what are my alternatives, keep him inside at all time, never satiate his desires to run errands with me?!
Is it a violation to take a dog on a walk during the summer months? Where is the line drawn?
This is such bullshit! I fully intend to get on the horn with Denver Animal control during business hours tomorrow to get to the bottom of this crap.
I am so aggravated! Even though a fine was averted this time, I still feel extremely violated.
...as you were
Monday, July 16, 2007
The world's first bottle to insult your intelligence!
So, I'm guessing by now, many of you have seen the new Coors product offering that has some sort of temperature change mechanism within the label that changes the colors of the mountains when the bottle is considered to be cold, and ready to consume...
What a break-through concept! how did we ever survive before?!
Its such a relief that I can FINALLY get an idea of the temperature of a Coors Light before the first piping hot sip hits my lips.
Oh wait a second!... as humans, we already have a built in method for checking something temperature by simply touching it with our bare hand! ...Idiots
You know what...while they are at it, why doesn't Coors release the worlds first can that lets you know when its empty!... 'cause god knows, the world has suffered enough agony over making our own determination based on the weight difference of a full can, vs. an empty can...
...as you were
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A first Time for Everything!
So Here it is, Tuesday, a good 5 days before Sunday... and I already put a check mark next to the "get Father's Day cards" task on my mental task list...
The selection is really quite impressive when you don't wait until 10:30 am on Father's Day, like i tend to do...
By that point, the shelves usually look like that of the pre-hurricane stockpiling rush Florida/Georgia folks are accustomed to.
And while we are on the topic of Father's day, I saw a whole section of Godfather cards. Do people really buy cards for their godfather? Shit... I don't even think I have ever been assigned a godfather.
I will say this though... if Marlon Brando was my dad, I don't think the joke of getting him a "To a very special Godfather" card would ever grow stale. :)
...as you were
The selection is really quite impressive when you don't wait until 10:30 am on Father's Day, like i tend to do...
By that point, the shelves usually look like that of the pre-hurricane stockpiling rush Florida/Georgia folks are accustomed to.
And while we are on the topic of Father's day, I saw a whole section of Godfather cards. Do people really buy cards for their godfather? Shit... I don't even think I have ever been assigned a godfather.
I will say this though... if Marlon Brando was my dad, I don't think the joke of getting him a "To a very special Godfather" card would ever grow stale. :)
...as you were
Friday, June 8, 2007
Holiday Briefs...
So this morning, as I seductively slipped into my boxers adorned with decorative red Christmas tree balls, I thought to myself, "how about that... middle of June, and I'm wearing Christmas boxers...."
So there is the possibility that I'm just lazy (actually, I know i'm lazy, just not sure if that is the reasoning behind this...) , but I would be willing to bet, most guys out there with some sort of holiday themed underwear, probably wear those puppies all through the year.
While one might think its odd that I'm wearing Christmas boxers this close to Father's Day, I think its even more wierd if a guy packs away his Xmas boxers with the rest of the holiday garb when mid January roles around...
Can you imagine, pulling the xmas decorations box out of the crawl space, expecting to find some garland and a wreath, only to discover that the nativity scene is being fumigated by your grandfather's old stale skivvies?!
An encounter like that would surely cause anyone to spit up their eggnog...
On top of that... Why would any man want to reduce his available assortment of underwear? One could easily get 25-35 days of wear out of those bad boys over the course of the year.
I suppose the only risk being run is that you might stumble into your first sexual encounter with a new spring/summer fling, only to have your partner undo your pants to find a jolly old Saint Nick starring back at them.... I suppose that could be awkward.
even then, the pros clearly outweigh the cons on this one!
....as you were
So there is the possibility that I'm just lazy (actually, I know i'm lazy, just not sure if that is the reasoning behind this...) , but I would be willing to bet, most guys out there with some sort of holiday themed underwear, probably wear those puppies all through the year.
While one might think its odd that I'm wearing Christmas boxers this close to Father's Day, I think its even more wierd if a guy packs away his Xmas boxers with the rest of the holiday garb when mid January roles around...
Can you imagine, pulling the xmas decorations box out of the crawl space, expecting to find some garland and a wreath, only to discover that the nativity scene is being fumigated by your grandfather's old stale skivvies?!
An encounter like that would surely cause anyone to spit up their eggnog...
On top of that... Why would any man want to reduce his available assortment of underwear? One could easily get 25-35 days of wear out of those bad boys over the course of the year.
I suppose the only risk being run is that you might stumble into your first sexual encounter with a new spring/summer fling, only to have your partner undo your pants to find a jolly old Saint Nick starring back at them.... I suppose that could be awkward.
even then, the pros clearly outweigh the cons on this one!
....as you were
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Take your own life... get a free burrito!
Generally speaking... people are idiots.
It amazes me what people will do for something free.
Apparently today, Chipotle was giving away a free entree to anyone who brought in a canned good. When I first heard about it, I though it sounded like a swell idea! Chipotle organizes something good for society, earns a little good PR, some humanitarians get a free burrito, and the needy get some canned goods....
Then I saw the line at my local Chipotle...
I swear, the line was out the door, and around the building. I didn't hang around to count, but I'm guessing there were at least 70 people in line.
Now assuming 1 minute per person, give or take... that is an hour of waiting in line for a stinkin' burrito, or burrito bowl, if you are watching the carbs...
Have these people never heard of opportunity cost?!
Had I been all-in on the humanitarian part of the idea, I would have tossed my can in the cardboard collection box, and walked across the way to Noodles, where I could pay for a meal, that unlike my Chiptole burrito, would be ready for consumption before the less health conscious start thinking about heading to Taco Bell for 4th meal.
In addition, doesn't giving away an entire meal to someone who is normally on the giving side of the fence... rather than the people who are actually hungry.... kind of go against the purpose?
I have worked on the Chipotle online ordering system, so I know they have hundred of locations across the country. Lets say 500 for simplicity. And lets say that each of those 500 locations gets 200 do-gooders in the door. Thats 100,000 free meals, for the middle class....
I can only speak for myself, but if I were down and out... I would much rather take take on a massive chiptole burrito with some good fixins... rather than sip down a can of Manwich, or possibly some kidney beans.
Which brings me to my next point... How many of these yuppy do-gooders, snagged the crappiest can of crap from their walk-in pantry, as they figured a can of crap is a can of crap...
"I sure hope someone is hungry for a big helping of Campell's Cream of De Baño!"
So here we are... I started out this rant thinking that Chiptole and all its patrons were doing something nice for the community... and now I cant help but feel that Chipotle's efforts were misdirected, and all the people who took part in the publicity stunt were greedy, and basically just taking advantage of a chance for a free meal.
But don't feel bad if you did partake... as I too would have been right there at the sneeze-guard myself, had the line not been so outrageous... I'm merely making an observation of the world in which we live. :)
...as you were.
It amazes me what people will do for something free.
Apparently today, Chipotle was giving away a free entree to anyone who brought in a canned good. When I first heard about it, I though it sounded like a swell idea! Chipotle organizes something good for society, earns a little good PR, some humanitarians get a free burrito, and the needy get some canned goods....
Then I saw the line at my local Chipotle...
I swear, the line was out the door, and around the building. I didn't hang around to count, but I'm guessing there were at least 70 people in line.
Now assuming 1 minute per person, give or take... that is an hour of waiting in line for a stinkin' burrito, or burrito bowl, if you are watching the carbs...
Have these people never heard of opportunity cost?!
Had I been all-in on the humanitarian part of the idea, I would have tossed my can in the cardboard collection box, and walked across the way to Noodles, where I could pay for a meal, that unlike my Chiptole burrito, would be ready for consumption before the less health conscious start thinking about heading to Taco Bell for 4th meal.
In addition, doesn't giving away an entire meal to someone who is normally on the giving side of the fence... rather than the people who are actually hungry.... kind of go against the purpose?
I have worked on the Chipotle online ordering system, so I know they have hundred of locations across the country. Lets say 500 for simplicity. And lets say that each of those 500 locations gets 200 do-gooders in the door. Thats 100,000 free meals, for the middle class....
I can only speak for myself, but if I were down and out... I would much rather take take on a massive chiptole burrito with some good fixins... rather than sip down a can of Manwich, or possibly some kidney beans.
Which brings me to my next point... How many of these yuppy do-gooders, snagged the crappiest can of crap from their walk-in pantry, as they figured a can of crap is a can of crap...
"I sure hope someone is hungry for a big helping of Campell's Cream of De Baño!"
So here we are... I started out this rant thinking that Chiptole and all its patrons were doing something nice for the community... and now I cant help but feel that Chipotle's efforts were misdirected, and all the people who took part in the publicity stunt were greedy, and basically just taking advantage of a chance for a free meal.
But don't feel bad if you did partake... as I too would have been right there at the sneeze-guard myself, had the line not been so outrageous... I'm merely making an observation of the world in which we live. :)
...as you were.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
How do they know?
So for any of you who have ever seen any of the alien movies, you are familiar with the imfamous scene where the alien bursts out of the poor schmuck's chest.
My question is this, how does the alien know to pop out of the chest? Why not pop out of the back, or from the armpit?
I assume its must be fairly, if not pitch black in the cavity where the baby alien temporarily calls home, so how does it go about orienting itself?
I don't know about you guys, but I find this to be a major hole in the plot...
...as you were
The Ultimate Denial
So the other day, I heard a women refer to her dead husband as her "late husband".
Clearly nothing wrong with this approach as its a widely accepted term used in today's society.
However, if you really think about it, maybe it is simply her way of not facing the issue...
Maybe rather than acknowledging that her husband is no longer with us, she would prefer to just assume that he is running late, and that is why he is not here.
For a moment, I considered walking up to this poor women and asking her if her husband at least had the decency to call if he knew he was going to be late...
I'm guessing its a good thing that I "passed" on that idea...
...as you were
@
So what the hell is with the @ symbol.
As a society, are we that friggin' lazy that we need to come up with a symbol for a friggin' 2 letter word?
Is it such a burden on our daily lives to write/type out the letters "a" "t" that some group of influential geniuses decided to coin a single symbol that would greatly simplify our world?!
I think the complexity of drawing the letter "a", and then drawing a protective circular shield around the outside of it...might actually require more ink than a simple "a" and a "t" would...
Couldn't the @ symbol be short for something a little more cumbersome, such as :
Aardvark?
Antarctica?
Antidisestablishmentarianism?
Doggie Delcacies
I was eating something standard the other day, perhaps chili cheese Frito's, and along came my dog, Frazier. Boy oh boy was he sure hoping I would elect to cut him in on the action. So, like a good father, I shared the goodness...and tossed him a few
Anyhow, this got me thinking... for dogs, any and all human food is considered a delicacies.
So therefore, dogs are pretty much forced to enjoy all their delicacies from off the floor, or as they fly though the air towards their face.
How would you like it if you had to consume escargot off the floor, or as it flew towards your face.
Poor Fraz...
The Straight Edge
I'm perplexed, where did the first straight edge come from. You know, a perfectly straight edge, that us humans can use to build all the technological miracles of modern society...?
If you think about it, you can only create a straight edge, with another straight edge, that is equally as straight. So where did the very first one come from?
You can use a table-saw to make a straight edge, but a table saw couldn't have been created without a pre-existing straight edge...
Its a modern day chicken-or-the-egg scenario... and by all means, any light you can shed would be must appreciated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)