Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Gays should be allowed to marry - just not to one another
It is ludicrious to deny gays the same right that us regular Americans have by disallowing gay marriages. This infringes on their right to the pursuit of happiness, which that itself is unconstitutional. They pay taxes, they go to work and now we won't let the marry. I say phoey to that, Mr. Bush. Besides, gays have been getting married for years. I know several of the married men that go to my gym are gay. They all hang together and gossip in the stream room together. It's so totally obvious what's going on, you can ask my girlfriend Janet if you don't believe me. And, this isn't an isolated incident. I also witnessed this when I lived in NYC. My loft overlooked an abondoned warhouse in Chelsea. The warehouse was home for transvestities and male prostitutes alike, and about 75% of their clientel were from the subarbs. Every Friday there would be a train of conservative looking white guys showing up in Volvo's and BMW's. They were obviously married, and I think this highlights another reason to continue to let gays marry. It keeps them from living in warehouses and giving oral sex for $20. If Bush had any brains he would encourage gays to marry, then these same people living in the warehouses could also drive Volvo's and work at an investment banking firm. Instead, he will be forcing them down this deep dark path. Do you see the price we will pay, if we don't continue to allow gay marriages? I don't think I can ram this point down hard enough. Besides, the only other altertive means to make an honest man out of a homosexual is to throw him in the clergy, and we've seen how that backfired.
I know I sound like some liberal spouting off, but I too have my limits. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children and here's why. I don't know too many gay couples who have children, but I have seen a disproportionate amount of lesbian couples with crack babies. As an outside observer the kids seem to get tons of love and the parents are great. I don't think you could ask for more attentive and affectionate parents. But, I still don't think that excuses them from giving crack to a baby. I mean what kind of a sicko would do that. Besides, I think that just creates an even larger problem. Think about this as if you are a crack head and need money for crack. If you knew that there were some lesbians willing to pay good money for a crack baby, well put 2 and 2 together. It just creates an entire blackmarket for crackbaby adoptions.
So all I'm saying is gay marriage, yes. It will keep them from living in warehouses and giving BJ's for $20.
Gays raising children, not good. It creates too many crack babies.
And these are my talking points.
|
I know I sound like some liberal spouting off, but I too have my limits. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children and here's why. I don't know too many gay couples who have children, but I have seen a disproportionate amount of lesbian couples with crack babies. As an outside observer the kids seem to get tons of love and the parents are great. I don't think you could ask for more attentive and affectionate parents. But, I still don't think that excuses them from giving crack to a baby. I mean what kind of a sicko would do that. Besides, I think that just creates an even larger problem. Think about this as if you are a crack head and need money for crack. If you knew that there were some lesbians willing to pay good money for a crack baby, well put 2 and 2 together. It just creates an entire blackmarket for crackbaby adoptions.
So all I'm saying is gay marriage, yes. It will keep them from living in warehouses and giving BJ's for $20.
Gays raising children, not good. It creates too many crack babies.
And these are my talking points.
|
Don't Fly
I'm trying to figure out how to get my email link on this page, but I keep inserting an email hyperlink like it is a web page. What's weird is every time I try click on the link my microwave turns on. I'll get it figured out. Did I mention I'm an engineer, and I work on aerospace stuff. Think about that next time you're flying.
Ohhh yeah, Bush is stupid.
Bye
|
Ohhh yeah, Bush is stupid.
Bye
|
I Love Spin
Karen Hughes was on the O'Reaily Factor last night. she has decided to help manage the Bush campaign during his reelection push. On the show she kept emphasizing that the most important issue with the american people is homeland security and the war on terrorism.
Everything I've seen says the economy is the top issue with voters. But then again, I'm a liar.
|
Everything I've seen says the economy is the top issue with voters. But then again, I'm a liar.
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Innovation Lost, the Downfall of U.S. Corporations
Us companies are losing some business to foreign companies because of cost. However, we are also going to lose even more business, because innovation has been pushed under the mattress and we're sitting on it. I work for a large multinational hemogeny that is, for the most part, a commodity producer. We can't beat foreign companies on price and by cost-cutting alone, so we have to do it by developing differentiated products. The new catch phrase is organic growth from the CEO down to midlevel managers. The idea is to develop new markets by developing new products, i.e. organic growth, as opposed to growing existing markets. This sounds all well and good, and we have the talent and resources to do it, but we lack one main ingredient. This is perhaps the most important ingredient, chutzpahtspah. That's right, we don't have the stomach for it. The company I work for, like many large US manufacturing companies, has three things working against it for real innovation: 1) old capital intensive equipment 2) market short-sightedness and 3) we're just too damn big.
The first problem, the old, cumbersome and capital-intensive equipment, is nothing new. It contributed partly to the downfall of the steel industries. Small, efficient and highly automated micromills in the US are still in business today and doing quite well, whereas their older and larger rolling mills suffered a slow and agonizing death. It's tough being old. You can't move very quickly and adapt to changes. If a customer wants something new and just a little bit of it, well tough pumpkins. You'll get a lot, and pay a lot and like it. This is largely to do with much of the outdated equipment in the US, which is very very expensive to maintain and run. In fact, the company I work for never would have purchased much of the equipment we still use today, had we not gotten a honey of deal tsupportrt support war efforts. But, now we are stuck with these behemoths, which lock us into only supporting only a select few markets. This also keeps companies like mine from venturing into new markets, because the monster must be fed. Our business model is built around that.
The second problem is aversion to risk. But before I begin, I can't emphasis enough the capabilities and talents I see in many of the people I work with and associate with in professional organizations. There are a lot of great ideas and just as many problems solvers to make those ideas a reality. The bullets are there, the gun is there, but executives are too afraid to put the bullets in the gun and pull the trigger for fear of missing their target or worse, shooting themselves in the foot. This mindset is endemic in US business. The fear of risk simply keeps executives from pursuing real innovation. Much of this comes from, in my opinion, the heightened awareness we all have for the stock market. However, profitable the stock market was in the 90's, it now has CEO's, executives and real innovators hand tied. Executives are measured by their quarterly performance, and if they don't make a 15% ROC for a couple of quarters and in a row, and stocks dip; they're out on their asses. Fortunately for them a golden parachute to slow their fall with a bucket of cash at the bottom for extra precaution. However, this climate makes it very difficult for anyone to put their neck on the line and really go for it. Instead, we get a lot of talk about new products and organic growth, but nothing ever materializes, except nifty presentation. The third point, the fact that corporations are just damn big I'll have to touch some other time. But, quite frankly, that is a subject that is too deep to tackle here.
So, tah tah, I have to go now and brush up on my Mandarin, I have an interview next week.
|
The first problem, the old, cumbersome and capital-intensive equipment, is nothing new. It contributed partly to the downfall of the steel industries. Small, efficient and highly automated micromills in the US are still in business today and doing quite well, whereas their older and larger rolling mills suffered a slow and agonizing death. It's tough being old. You can't move very quickly and adapt to changes. If a customer wants something new and just a little bit of it, well tough pumpkins. You'll get a lot, and pay a lot and like it. This is largely to do with much of the outdated equipment in the US, which is very very expensive to maintain and run. In fact, the company I work for never would have purchased much of the equipment we still use today, had we not gotten a honey of deal tsupportrt support war efforts. But, now we are stuck with these behemoths, which lock us into only supporting only a select few markets. This also keeps companies like mine from venturing into new markets, because the monster must be fed. Our business model is built around that.
The second problem is aversion to risk. But before I begin, I can't emphasis enough the capabilities and talents I see in many of the people I work with and associate with in professional organizations. There are a lot of great ideas and just as many problems solvers to make those ideas a reality. The bullets are there, the gun is there, but executives are too afraid to put the bullets in the gun and pull the trigger for fear of missing their target or worse, shooting themselves in the foot. This mindset is endemic in US business. The fear of risk simply keeps executives from pursuing real innovation. Much of this comes from, in my opinion, the heightened awareness we all have for the stock market. However, profitable the stock market was in the 90's, it now has CEO's, executives and real innovators hand tied. Executives are measured by their quarterly performance, and if they don't make a 15% ROC for a couple of quarters and in a row, and stocks dip; they're out on their asses. Fortunately for them a golden parachute to slow their fall with a bucket of cash at the bottom for extra precaution. However, this climate makes it very difficult for anyone to put their neck on the line and really go for it. Instead, we get a lot of talk about new products and organic growth, but nothing ever materializes, except nifty presentation. The third point, the fact that corporations are just damn big I'll have to touch some other time. But, quite frankly, that is a subject that is too deep to tackle here.
So, tah tah, I have to go now and brush up on my Mandarin, I have an interview next week.
|
Friday, March 26, 2004
Democrats rally behind guy that isn’t George Bush, Kerry
I don’t know if you heard Al Gore’s endorsement for Kerry, but it was very strange. First, Al Gore came across as artificially energetic and Dean-esque. I wish I could have seen it, because a short-circuiting robot comes to mind. Those burly yowls don’t seem to come to him naturally like they do with Dean.
But, what I thought was most intriguing was how he started his endorsement. He opened up with a laundry list of prominent democrats who didn’t support Kerry initially, including President Clinton, Jimmy Carter, himself and a few other notable democrats. His point was that Kerry earned this nomination through grit and determination, and he did it alone. It was well intended, but it was a very backhanded comment. I think it highlights a few issues surrounding the Democratic Party and Kerry’s nomination. It really shows how much Democrats hate Bush; so much that they are willing to set aside their agendas and egos to join one another during this push to remove Bush from office. Bush has only himself to blame for that, and it really took a lot of prodding to get the Democrats to come together like this. This never would have happened if Bush had pursued a more moderate path and at least feigned some deference to the common sense and judgment of the American people.
I also think Gore’s support also gives even further credit to Dean for being the first candidate to challenge Bush and admit that he wasn’t happy with administrations policies on the economy and even terrorism. Dean was the front-runner initially, and he chose what was a very unpopular position by conventional wisdom at the time. The other candidates saw how well this was working and followed suit. If it weren’t for Kerry’s perceived “electability”, or more accurately Deans perceived “un-electability” Dean would have gotten he nomination. As a result, I think that Kerry as an individual is lost in all of this, which really weakens his position as a candidate or a leader. The party seems to be propping someone who says the right things and appears to play the role best. This might pose problems as November draws nearer, but I hope I’m wrong.
|
But, what I thought was most intriguing was how he started his endorsement. He opened up with a laundry list of prominent democrats who didn’t support Kerry initially, including President Clinton, Jimmy Carter, himself and a few other notable democrats. His point was that Kerry earned this nomination through grit and determination, and he did it alone. It was well intended, but it was a very backhanded comment. I think it highlights a few issues surrounding the Democratic Party and Kerry’s nomination. It really shows how much Democrats hate Bush; so much that they are willing to set aside their agendas and egos to join one another during this push to remove Bush from office. Bush has only himself to blame for that, and it really took a lot of prodding to get the Democrats to come together like this. This never would have happened if Bush had pursued a more moderate path and at least feigned some deference to the common sense and judgment of the American people.
I also think Gore’s support also gives even further credit to Dean for being the first candidate to challenge Bush and admit that he wasn’t happy with administrations policies on the economy and even terrorism. Dean was the front-runner initially, and he chose what was a very unpopular position by conventional wisdom at the time. The other candidates saw how well this was working and followed suit. If it weren’t for Kerry’s perceived “electability”, or more accurately Deans perceived “un-electability” Dean would have gotten he nomination. As a result, I think that Kerry as an individual is lost in all of this, which really weakens his position as a candidate or a leader. The party seems to be propping someone who says the right things and appears to play the role best. This might pose problems as November draws nearer, but I hope I’m wrong.
|
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
March Madness Makes Me Crazy
It's NCAA tournament time, and I've already shitcanned my bracket. Considering KY lost several days ago this posting might be posthumous, but my message still needs to be brought to you, the people. As a result of this tournament I heard the most ignorant and racist sentence I've ever heard. If you went to my highschool, you would understand how serious of claim that is. I grew up with sentences like, "Floyd, if you push me in that dumpster one more time, me and you's gonna ramble". Floyd and Doug were best friends. They always took the trash out together to get out of class for a while and to smoke. Everyday Floyd would convince Doug to carry the huge trash can to the top of the steps overlooking the dumpster, at which time Floyd would push Doug into the dumpster. One day Doug got tired of this, and let Floyd know. Floyd finished 5th in my graduating class. So trust me, I know ignorant shit when I see it.
Anyway, my brother was listening to a call-in radio show from Louisville, KY, and they were discussing the University of KY's chance to advance far into the tournament. This was before KY lost to UAB. Anyway, during the show a KY fan, who was obviously angry, called in and made the following comment about the KY head coach, Orlando "Tubby" Smith:
"Yeah, with [KY basketball fan's] luck, [Tubby] will probably get lucky and win it all this year, and we'll have to keep him for another two years"
You really need to read that again, because it takes a good 10 seconds to fully sink in.
You see what I mean. That is one amazing sentence. I wasn't sure whether to cry or laugh when I heard it. I was more stunned than anything. That sentence will stick with me forever.
Here is my take on the sentence. Firstly, he is, basically, saying that with the rotten luck that KY fans are accustomed to . . .stop.
KY is one of the top 3 "winning"-est programs depending on how you measure ""winning"-est" with Duke and UCLA . . . continue. So I would consider KY fans to be rather lucky over the years.
The listener continues to say that it is likely Tubby will get lucky and KY will win the tournament. Isn't that the whole point. Poor him, his coach gets lucky and wins the whole tournament. Wouldn't that just be awful. And that really is the sort of thing you luck your way into. Never mind the fact that KY received the highest ranking the past two years entering the tournament. Ohh, and by the way, he's already won a national championship. Something most coaches would gladly trade for their left eye.
Now the listener goes on to say, that if Tubby does win it all this year, they would regretablly have no choice but to keep him on staff for another two years. You have to be pretty goddamned racist or crazy to want to fire your coach after he just won the national title. I think if Timothy McVeigh was winning national titles, most people would forget that other incident. Look, "I don't know nothing about blowing up no goddamned buildings. All I know is the boy can coach", is what you might hear.
My point is that I don't think KY deserves Tubby. Sure he did lose early in the tournament this season, and that pissed me off too. But, I don't see where they will get a better coach. Tubby will put another top 5 program together next year, make a run at the title, but there will still be talk of firing him. Maybe if Tubby would win the national title and then shoot an Arab center court he would get his dues.
Just a thought
|
Anyway, my brother was listening to a call-in radio show from Louisville, KY, and they were discussing the University of KY's chance to advance far into the tournament. This was before KY lost to UAB. Anyway, during the show a KY fan, who was obviously angry, called in and made the following comment about the KY head coach, Orlando "Tubby" Smith:
"Yeah, with [KY basketball fan's] luck, [Tubby] will probably get lucky and win it all this year, and we'll have to keep him for another two years"
You really need to read that again, because it takes a good 10 seconds to fully sink in.
You see what I mean. That is one amazing sentence. I wasn't sure whether to cry or laugh when I heard it. I was more stunned than anything. That sentence will stick with me forever.
Here is my take on the sentence. Firstly, he is, basically, saying that with the rotten luck that KY fans are accustomed to . . .stop.
KY is one of the top 3 "winning"-est programs depending on how you measure ""winning"-est" with Duke and UCLA . . . continue. So I would consider KY fans to be rather lucky over the years.
The listener continues to say that it is likely Tubby will get lucky and KY will win the tournament. Isn't that the whole point. Poor him, his coach gets lucky and wins the whole tournament. Wouldn't that just be awful. And that really is the sort of thing you luck your way into. Never mind the fact that KY received the highest ranking the past two years entering the tournament. Ohh, and by the way, he's already won a national championship. Something most coaches would gladly trade for their left eye.
Now the listener goes on to say, that if Tubby does win it all this year, they would regretablly have no choice but to keep him on staff for another two years. You have to be pretty goddamned racist or crazy to want to fire your coach after he just won the national title. I think if Timothy McVeigh was winning national titles, most people would forget that other incident. Look, "I don't know nothing about blowing up no goddamned buildings. All I know is the boy can coach", is what you might hear.
My point is that I don't think KY deserves Tubby. Sure he did lose early in the tournament this season, and that pissed me off too. But, I don't see where they will get a better coach. Tubby will put another top 5 program together next year, make a run at the title, but there will still be talk of firing him. Maybe if Tubby would win the national title and then shoot an Arab center court he would get his dues.
Just a thought
|
