Finally, a new way to waste time on the internet.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present: reviews of personal lubricants on drugstore.com.
Sample quote: "Feels ok once you get past the burning sensation."
PS: One more post about new ways to waste time on the internet, and I've got a series.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
How You Can Make $200 From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Yesterday, President Obama signed in to law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the full text of which you can read here.
It is very long.
Now, I want my piece of the government's money same as anyone. However, I just bought some new novels, and my docket is a bit full at the moment. Plus, 900 page resolutions are just not suitable subway reading.
Here's what I propose: first person out there to read H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - the whole thing - and tell me how I, Richard, can make money off it: $200 dollar reward.
Bam! Two hundred smackers, in cash, right there in an envelope of your choice delivered to an address of your choosing. It's my little investment in our future.
Now, I am no stickler for protocol, but let me make clear on some ground rules. First, although you must read the whole bill, skimming is allowed. It's also ok if you've read H.R. 1 for some other enterprise (like you work in a senator's office) as long as it is the final version of the bill that you've read and not some previous incarnation.
However, for my $200 I am expecting some advice that is tailored to me. We'll talk it over as I verify that you've read the whole bill, but if you want a little guidance as you work your way through this thing, you should know these money making-relevant things about me:
First, I am not above starting my own business although I'm a bit lazy about running one. I would not be putting a world-changing amount of money in to this theoretical enterprise, but I do have what people refer to as "life savings."
Finally, I have only the mildest form of business training and only a few marketable skills (making movies, writing unreadably long essays about pop culture minutiae, etc.), none of which would qualify me to, say, build a new national power grid. However, you can assume that I am a clever and able-bodied American in the classic tradition.
Please leave your submissions in the comments section of this post. First to read the bill and sell me on how it can make me money is the winner!
It is very long.
Now, I want my piece of the government's money same as anyone. However, I just bought some new novels, and my docket is a bit full at the moment. Plus, 900 page resolutions are just not suitable subway reading.
Here's what I propose: first person out there to read H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - the whole thing - and tell me how I, Richard, can make money off it: $200 dollar reward.
Bam! Two hundred smackers, in cash, right there in an envelope of your choice delivered to an address of your choosing. It's my little investment in our future.
Now, I am no stickler for protocol, but let me make clear on some ground rules. First, although you must read the whole bill, skimming is allowed. It's also ok if you've read H.R. 1 for some other enterprise (like you work in a senator's office) as long as it is the final version of the bill that you've read and not some previous incarnation.
However, for my $200 I am expecting some advice that is tailored to me. We'll talk it over as I verify that you've read the whole bill, but if you want a little guidance as you work your way through this thing, you should know these money making-relevant things about me:
First, I am not above starting my own business although I'm a bit lazy about running one. I would not be putting a world-changing amount of money in to this theoretical enterprise, but I do have what people refer to as "life savings."
Finally, I have only the mildest form of business training and only a few marketable skills (making movies, writing unreadably long essays about pop culture minutiae, etc.), none of which would qualify me to, say, build a new national power grid. However, you can assume that I am a clever and able-bodied American in the classic tradition.
Please leave your submissions in the comments section of this post. First to read the bill and sell me on how it can make me money is the winner!
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Notice to the Daily Show Re: Michael Steele
Guys,
I have just finished watching newly elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele's first This Week interview, and I am ready to say that it is time to stop making fun of Michael Steele for being a black Republican and time to start making fun of him for some of the stupid shit he has said.
Steele spent several excruciating minutes explaining why creating "work" had nothing to do with creating "jobs." The distinction being that "work" created by the government only lasted until the end of a contract, whereas "jobs" created by small businesses, like the millions lost so far: "When they go - they've gone away before, and they come back."
If that makes sense to you, you are either thinking too hard or not hard enough.
Steele then went on to slam Pell grant allocations as having no effect on the job you lose today. When George Stephanopoulos asked him if he Steele would agree that a school construction component of the bill would create jobs, Steele said Sure, short term construction jobs, if that's all you're after.
If he's interested in creating a stronger economy in the long term, why not help train the American work force to create them? And if he's interested in short-term jobs, why not let small businesses have a few government contracts until banks start lending again?
It's funny that America's historically most racist major party elected a black man their chair [at 1:36] two weeks after the Obama took office, but, trust me - listen to this Steele guy. What he's saying is a lot funnier than the color of his skin.
Sincerely,
ribble's
I have just finished watching newly elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele's first This Week interview, and I am ready to say that it is time to stop making fun of Michael Steele for being a black Republican and time to start making fun of him for some of the stupid shit he has said.
Steele spent several excruciating minutes explaining why creating "work" had nothing to do with creating "jobs." The distinction being that "work" created by the government only lasted until the end of a contract, whereas "jobs" created by small businesses, like the millions lost so far: "When they go - they've gone away before, and they come back."
If that makes sense to you, you are either thinking too hard or not hard enough.
Steele then went on to slam Pell grant allocations as having no effect on the job you lose today. When George Stephanopoulos asked him if he Steele would agree that a school construction component of the bill would create jobs, Steele said Sure, short term construction jobs, if that's all you're after.
If he's interested in creating a stronger economy in the long term, why not help train the American work force to create them? And if he's interested in short-term jobs, why not let small businesses have a few government contracts until banks start lending again?
It's funny that America's historically most racist major party elected a black man their chair [at 1:36] two weeks after the Obama took office, but, trust me - listen to this Steele guy. What he's saying is a lot funnier than the color of his skin.
Sincerely,
ribble's
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Post-Anticipation Post-Bush
Just before the inauguration, everybody on every television news show was giving his analysis of the failings of the Bush administration. Everybody, even hard-core Republicans, was able to come up with something, but most people had a very long list. Of course, it would take a book-length treatise to detail all the failings of the Bush administration, and several have already been published.
Now we've got this new guy, and there's been a shift in tone. Where previous reports tried to list the failings of the Bush administration, the news since the inauguration has been much more effective by characterizing it. The results have been bone-chilling.
For the record, then, if you want to understand the true legacy of the Bush administration without wading through Fiasco and Scott McClellan, take a look at Clinton's liberation of our foreign policy apparatus (beginning at 2:41), this New York Times article about American science's Bush hangover, and This American Life's podcast entitled The Audacity of Government (it's from 2008, but you'll see what I mean.)
Now we've got this new guy, and there's been a shift in tone. Where previous reports tried to list the failings of the Bush administration, the news since the inauguration has been much more effective by characterizing it. The results have been bone-chilling.
For the record, then, if you want to understand the true legacy of the Bush administration without wading through Fiasco and Scott McClellan, take a look at Clinton's liberation of our foreign policy apparatus (beginning at 2:41), this New York Times article about American science's Bush hangover, and This American Life's podcast entitled The Audacity of Government (it's from 2008, but you'll see what I mean.)
Real News Disorientation Syndrome
I watch the NewsHour on Fridays, and it's always a little disorienting to do that after a cable news-heavy week like this one.
Unlike most American news programs, when the NewsHour plays a clip of a politician speaking, they play a full clip. Most American television news programs play less than a single sentence - a sound bite.
The shift always leaves me a little mixed up - I keep anticipating the end of a clip, but the politician always ends up talking longer than I anticipate.
Unlike most American news programs, when the NewsHour plays a clip of a politician speaking, they play a full clip. Most American television news programs play less than a single sentence - a sound bite.
The shift always leaves me a little mixed up - I keep anticipating the end of a clip, but the politician always ends up talking longer than I anticipate.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
It's Times Like This I Really Miss Peter Jennings
If there is a heaven and I am lucky enough to be able to go, the first guy I am looking up is Peter Jennings.
Watching this occasion from here in media market #1 has really made me miss his straight-forwardness, his ability to contextualize a story, and his good reporting in the old school where the facts came before the spin, if the spin was even allowed to make an appearance at all.
I don't just want to see Peter Jennings in heaven because I miss seeing him on TV. I feel like Peter Jennings is the kind of guy who would know a lot about heaven and would have no problem filling me in - how it works, what the important institutions are, what kind of controversies God has involved with lately, and where to go for the best stories, food and cigarettes.
I hope that Peter is up there right now with Ed Murrow, just clownin' on Tom Brokaw.
Watching this occasion from here in media market #1 has really made me miss his straight-forwardness, his ability to contextualize a story, and his good reporting in the old school where the facts came before the spin, if the spin was even allowed to make an appearance at all.
I don't just want to see Peter Jennings in heaven because I miss seeing him on TV. I feel like Peter Jennings is the kind of guy who would know a lot about heaven and would have no problem filling me in - how it works, what the important institutions are, what kind of controversies God has involved with lately, and where to go for the best stories, food and cigarettes.
I hope that Peter is up there right now with Ed Murrow, just clownin' on Tom Brokaw.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Shimon Peres on Gaza
I just started watching George Stephanopoulos interviewing Israeli President Simon Peres on This Week.
Usually I half-watch this show until the roundtable in a lazy Sunday sort of way, but Peres is an engaging interview, and by engaging, I mean bone-chilling.
The nice thing about American press interviews with foreign leaders versus, say, American press interviews with ranking Senate Republicans is that foreign leaders do not have the same level of constant, institutional preparation for the American media, and so are less likely to be rehearsed, carefully-crafted talking points aimed at an American constituency.
It's always a little jarring at first. You can see the same thing in Roger and Me, when Michael Moore is interviewing GM managers about plant closings. These guys talk about capitalism in some pretty stark terms - their message is basically "yeah, we're costing Michigan tens of thousands of jobs, it's in our own self-interest to do that and so you can't hold it against us."
This is back in 1989, before Moore was a genre, and, from a modern perspective, these stuffed shirts don't seem cruel so much as naive. I'm sure the people making the decision about American plant closings are thinking about them in pretty much the same way now as then - but they sure aren't talking about it like that.
By modern standards, Peres gives us a pretty sharp look in to his soul.
Peres's main point on This Week is "we're not going to stop shooting at them until they stop shooting at us," which may sound reasonable until you realize that if the other guys are thinking the same way, then, logically, the shooting will never stop.
But it's not so much what he says as how he says it. Know how I said Indians and Pakistanis were basically the same people and would probably get along if they just stopped with all the posturing and brinksmanship? Not so much with Israelis and Palestinians.
That's why you can see something in Peres that no media-savvy American leader would allow himself on T.V. (unless he thought he only needed to talk to his base) - you can see hate. And that's why there won't be peace in the Middle East in His lifetime.
Usually I half-watch this show until the roundtable in a lazy Sunday sort of way, but Peres is an engaging interview, and by engaging, I mean bone-chilling.
The nice thing about American press interviews with foreign leaders versus, say, American press interviews with ranking Senate Republicans is that foreign leaders do not have the same level of constant, institutional preparation for the American media, and so are less likely to be rehearsed, carefully-crafted talking points aimed at an American constituency.
It's always a little jarring at first. You can see the same thing in Roger and Me, when Michael Moore is interviewing GM managers about plant closings. These guys talk about capitalism in some pretty stark terms - their message is basically "yeah, we're costing Michigan tens of thousands of jobs, it's in our own self-interest to do that and so you can't hold it against us."
This is back in 1989, before Moore was a genre, and, from a modern perspective, these stuffed shirts don't seem cruel so much as naive. I'm sure the people making the decision about American plant closings are thinking about them in pretty much the same way now as then - but they sure aren't talking about it like that.
By modern standards, Peres gives us a pretty sharp look in to his soul.
Peres's main point on This Week is "we're not going to stop shooting at them until they stop shooting at us," which may sound reasonable until you realize that if the other guys are thinking the same way, then, logically, the shooting will never stop.
But it's not so much what he says as how he says it. Know how I said Indians and Pakistanis were basically the same people and would probably get along if they just stopped with all the posturing and brinksmanship? Not so much with Israelis and Palestinians.
That's why you can see something in Peres that no media-savvy American leader would allow himself on T.V. (unless he thought he only needed to talk to his base) - you can see hate. And that's why there won't be peace in the Middle East in His lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
