Best. Bouncy. Place. Ever.
That is all.
(Sorry about the stock photo. I’ll wait and see if any I can get any pictures of the party.)
You are teh best EVAR…
I like giving gifts.
I do not like giving them on prescribed days.
At least, I do not like giving them on prescribed days for the sheer sake of the day. There is the obvious reason–the gross commercialism. Do I really need to rehash that obvious and tired (though not any less true) argument? There’s also something kind of dirty about the expectation. It is one thing for a person to know they are getting a gift and being excited. But it’s an entirely different thing when someone assumes, if not demands, a gift for no good reason but tradition says to do it–and it goes from dirty to disgusting if they get mad when you do not give them something.
But, now, giving a gift because you want to give a gift. That’s awesome. Or giving a gift because someone has done something and you want to tell them thanks, or how much you appreciate it, or whatever, that is cool. Or telling someone you’ve gotten them a gift and watching them squirm with anticipation… priceless.
I have talked about this before, but one of the things I do not understand is the idea that if someone gives you a gift, you must reciprocate. There is this kind of spiral of guilt that can begin with a single gift. In my EVER so humble opinion, real gifts do not require reciprocation. If the receiver wants to reciprocate, have a blast. But, again, it’s the expectation where things become problematic.
Although, I can imagine that if I wanted to create waves of havoc, I could start a gift reciprocation circle of DOOM. Here’s how it works. I give three or four people small trinkets. They respond with something better because, obviously, if you’re going to reciprocate, you must also better the person (nothing like a competition when giving gifts). Then I take the gifts I get back and give them to the other people. Maybe find three or four other people to give small gifts too. Then I just keep swapping back and forth until someone gives me a private island with a lemur and a turtle on it.
Business bad? Raise prices!
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as ‘a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes’
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
In what will be a surprise only to those who are simply not paying attention, Starbucks is losing business. Bad. Not only do they face stiff competition from upstarts like McDonalds and Dunkin’ Donuts, the economy, a bad rep on the environment (and labor, and relations with impoverished countries, and…), strong arm business tactics, or the fact most of the customers are obnoxious prats, but as far as I am concerned their products are simply awful.
I never got back to sleep yesterday, so I got breakfast at a local diner and wasted time by thumbing through a copy of the local newspaper. As I was reading a story about Starbucks caught my eye:
Starbucks Tests $2.50 Premium Coffee to Boost Sales
Here is everything you need to know about the story:
Starbucks Corp. is experimenting with a $2.50 cup of coffee that would add a new, premium product to help fight the first drop in U.S. customer visits in its 37- year history.
That’s it? That’s the grand plan? Charge more? Brilliant!
It would by silly to suggest that this is all they are trying to do, but the reality is that I do not really care what they are trying to do because I simply do not care about the company. But I cannot contain the incredulous feeling I had when I read this story. Starbucks has been on an obnoxious run, overcharging for horrid beverages and finding new ways to torture people with unwanted and probably undesirable concoctions. And when things go bad, one of the options they turn to is .. charging more?
Okay, so I lied, there is a little more to this story. Apparently, this absurdly priced “cup” of coffee is supposed to taste better. I can not tell if this is an admission that their coffee is horrid, but this quote from some random financial analyst sure makes me think so:
“If they can create a better-tasting product and if they can get people to pay more for it, then you’d have the missing ingredient, which is pricing power,” said Larry Miller…
Perhaps the missing ingredient is a decent product at a reasonable price from a company with business practices that did not make you sick to think you are supporting? Or is the sheer weight of the monolithic pseudo-monopoly simply too much to sustain or produce something of true value?
Slumber’s Not So Quiet Embrace
I woke up in the middle of the night tonight for no good reason that I can tell. I was just minding my own business, pleasantly lost in the caress of a dream which I barely got to know, let alone remember, when it dawned on me with a cruel and slowly conscious understanding: I am not asleep anymore. To my chagrin, my first thought was:
“Perhaps I am still asleep and this is some horrible dream where I think I am awake, but I’m really deeply asleep. If I am not careful, I will enter a cycle of fantasy life, endlessly confused, caught in a whirlwind of abnormality, desperately seeking an unknown goal which would, of course, be waking up to normalcy.”
Of course, as my eyes unwillingly opened, I had somewhat of a shocking epiphany–this was normalcy. Not that I have any problem with normalcy… except when it’s most present as my alarm clock glaring in the early hours, feeling as intruded upon to be gazed at by anyone at such an awful hour as I did to be doing any kind of gazing. My next thought was to be angry:
“Damn you cruel world! I nestled in twilight’s bosom for protection, comfort, and slumber, and I am tossed away like an orphaned child, crying into the night!”
Okay, perhaps that is a bit of an embellishment. I was definitely cranky, though. I rarely wake up in the middle of the night but every time I do (especially if I cannot find good cause), I feel betrayed by something between my body and my brain.
My brain, cunning creature that it is, took a long hard look at my body. This whole sleeping and waking thing, it seems so biological… that just reeks of the body being at fault.
Thoughts, my body counters, You woke up thinking.
In the end, I take the logical choice that it is a grand conspiracy between the two and I will never know the truth, but my yet-to-be-born great-grand children will once they’ve unsealed the documents and deciphered the lies within.
Here’s to a glass of something warm and yummy for my tummy and another attempt slumber.
Good night and I hope you have slept better than me tonight!
On moving
So I helped a friend move today.
Actually, I really helped a friend of a friend move today because I have only met the person I moved once before and that was last Monday.
Between being a fairly large (6′5″), “oh, he looks like he’d like to carry my solid oak desk by himself” person (of course the irony being I sit behind a computer all day) and the fact that I drove a truck for several years, I have moved a lot of people. I am not here to complain about moving people, though that might be different if I still had a truck (Note: someone with a truck does not automagically make them an interested moving service).
One of the things that moving day always highlights for me is how people utilize tools. Typically when you move, there is always at least a dolly or some other mechanical device designed to make moving things from point A to B easier. When you use them right. There is always an adventure when someone looks at something large and ungainly and says “You know, I bet we can put that on the dolly.” It’s been my experience that those words are definitely listed under “Famous Last Words.”
Sometimes it is just easier to carry the things. Yeah, while I made the crack about sitting behind a computer, I am a pretty big guy and carrying things is easier for me. For people who are injured or some other way disabled, I am with ya. But there’s a point when using tools, in this case perhaps a dolly, it becomes not only a crutch but is actually a hindrance.
Perhaps not quite similar, but it also reminds me of a busy parking lot. What I typically see is a lot of people running around in circles trying desperately to get a spot up front. Me, I just drive towards the back, find an easy space to park in and walk to where I am going. No stress, easy parking, and I get exercise so Nyaaaah!
It is way too easy for a tool to become a crutch. Just look at calculators (I’m guilty). But it is also easy for tools to become hindrances. Hopefully you’ve noted that I am not really talking just about moving here. One of the wonderful things about the human mind is our ability to create and use tools to our advantage. Laziness, however, is also one of our claims to genetic fame. And I think it is such a shame when people hold themselves back by trying to take the “easy” way which turns out to be a dead-end.
Life isn’t always what you see
So, I didn’t shave the whole weekend I played hockey and I decided to play around with growing a full beard in. Mainly I wanted to see how much grey I had.
This is a conversation I was having with my friend
about it:
Me: There’s so much freaking grey in my coming-in beard.
Friend: Better for you. get the chicks easier.
Me: Yeah, cause you know the babes, they love beards.
Friend: young chicks do because it makes you look older
Me: Can I tell you something you don’t want to hear?
Friend: sure
Me: Porn is not demonstrative of how the world works.
Enjoy the pictures, because it is not going to stay.
Second place!
I spent this weekend in Las Vegas at an international (Canadians and Americans) street hockey tournament. There were two divisions: the “open” (read: skilled) and the “rec” (read: me). The open division had somewhere between 15-20 teams from across the U.S. and Canada and was great to watch. The rec division had six excellent teams (also from across the U.S. and Canada) and while they did not have the overall skill level of the open divisions teams, I have to say that the play was surprisingly equal among the teams which lead to some really amazing games.
My team, the SoCal Misfits, got second place, with the final game being 3-2 and decided in a shoot-out, after a full game plus overtime. It was a blast.
Here are a few extra highlights from the trip–at least what I caught while I still had battery power…
Driving
The obligatory Zzyzx sign
The Hotel Room
Ironing boards are for drying your hockey gear on, right?
Tired, tired feet
The only action shot I got…
All of the awards on display
And, lastly, for those of you who felt the need to remind me to not break anything–I did not listen…
Is this what Academia is all about?
Let me tell you a little story.
So to Pope decides to visit an Italian University and give a speech. This is not a churchy event, but is the opening of the academic year and, in my opinion, a pretty big win for the University. Say what you will about the Pope, it is a big deal for him to come give a speech, whether you agree or not, which, really, is what this story is about.
What is the response from the school, do you think? Why for the students and faculty members to protest so loud that the Pope cancels the visit.
Here’s the story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,0,296931.story?coll=la-home-center
And some choice quotes:
More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.
…
The students who led the protests celebrated their “victory for laicism,” whereas the rector of La Sapienza, Renato Guarini, said he was dismayed that a “small publicity-seeking minority” had managed to derail a papal visit to an institution founded, as it happens, by one of Benedict’s predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII — 700 years ago.
Let me start by getting my feelings out in the open: screw you.
One of the challenges the students and faculty put forward is legitimate: the Pope was going to give a speech but was not open to a question and answer session. Although, if I were the Pope (Oh, how I dream about it! Where’s my hat?!), I think I would be disinclined to play hardball with people so determined to hate me on principle that they’ll cancel my appearance anyways.
But, seriously, I believe strongly in the Academic mission and, question and answer session or not, I think that having the Pope come speak is valuable and useful part of that mission. When people are critical of Universities as “liberal brain washing” institutes, it’s this kind of asshat actions that they are talking about. I am not saying that people should not be vocal against the Pope, or whoever, if they feel like it–I am certainly do not support the Catholic church–but let the man talk! And use it as an opportunity to hold more sessions about the Science vs. Religion debate, or on the issue of morality in atheism, or whatever you want! But do not silence a voice because they say things you do not like. That, to me, goes against the entire idea of Academia. Especially when that voice is the selected leader of a major world religion.
I just get so angry when I read or see this kind of hypocricy. This is one of those ultimate opportunities for education, learning, and growth. I mean, if the Dali Lama came, would these same people have protested… or is he western and modern enough? What if the next one isn’t so interested in constitutions and has takes a hard line. Well, too bad, same guy, just reincarnated. Haha! You fail!
Seriously, though, I expected in Academia, of all places, for any civilized voice to have a platform and opportunity to speak. It’s not a victory to celebrate–you did not win a skirmish in the great war against religion; you did not even fight. Walk around with all the pride and prejudice you want. It is not for me.
Can Atheists Be Parents?
Editor’s Note: It has been pointed out that this article is from 1970, so I suppose that changes things a little bit. I preserve the original entry nonetheless.
Apparently not in New Jersey.
According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:
Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”
Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.
First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.
Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.
Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.
Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.
Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!
Ducks trade Hnidy
All I can say is about freaking time and don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.
The Ducks announced on Wednesday that they have acquired right wing Brandon Bochenski from the Boston Bruins in exchange for defenseman Shane Hnidy and Anaheim’s sixth round pick in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. In addition, the Ducks relinquished their option to exchange fourth round picks with the Bruins in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft (as part of the Stanislav Chistov deal, Nov. 13, 2006).
