Christmas used to be fun. No, not for the reasons you're thinking. When I was younger it was great opening presents and getting new toys but even then that's not what it was about. Christmas used to be the time when everyone would come over to my grandmother's house, no matter where they lived, and we'd catch up on what was new and talk about current events. Everyone always had interesting things to say and opinions varied. The dinner table would be crowded with up to ten people and then the infamous "kids' table." Conversations would range from hollywood gaffes to movies to politics. We'd have a huge dinner, usually with ham as the requisite centerpiece, then coffee, my grandmother's famous apple pie or carrot cake and the annual setback game. That was Christmas. Every year I'd look forward to it but things have changed and now I lament the Christmas that was and, sadly, is no more.
What's different? People move away and it's, understandably, harder to come back home. Two aunts live across the country and my brother lives in the midwest. Some people came for Thanksgiving, others for Christmas, and it was great to see them but it just isn't the same if everyone isn't here for Christmas. And so it has been for the past 8 or 9 years. I've lost count. This year we didn't have Christmas, not on Christmas day at least. Plans just worked out better for us to get together a few days after Christmas. Not everyone was there and it made me sad. I don't think we'll ever get that Christmas tradition back and each passing year the memories fade a little bit more and I'm a little less disappointed.
12.30.2006
11.23.2006
The Office - Views on Women
I have to confess...I love NBC's The Office (Thursdays at 8:30pm EST). It's witty, apropos, and hilarious. I defy you to read Dwight Schrute's thoughts on women and tell me he isn't brilliant!!!
NBC - The Office: Episode 216 - Valentine's Day
Dwight: "Women are like wolves. If you want a wolf, you have to trap it...you have to snare it and then you have to tame it, keep it happy, care for it, feed it, lovingly the way an animal deserves to be loved...and my animal deserves a lot of loving."
Yes Dwight...you are so right. Wolves!
NBC - The Office: Episode 216 - Valentine's Day
Dwight: "Women are like wolves. If you want a wolf, you have to trap it...you have to snare it and then you have to tame it, keep it happy, care for it, feed it, lovingly the way an animal deserves to be loved...and my animal deserves a lot of loving."
Yes Dwight...you are so right. Wolves!
4.29.2006
Immigration: Redux
This is old and incomplete but I figured I'd post it anyway....
Where to start? First, read my initial post on this topic. CSPAN had Juan Jose Gutierrez from Latino Movement USA on Washington Journal this morning and my first response is "wow." Please excuse the absence of a link to a website for Latino Movement USA. I could not find one.
Apparently, a call has gone out from pro-illegal immigration groups for all immigrants to boycott work, school, etc. on Monday, May 1st as a show of solidarity with the plight of the 20 million illegal immigrants in this country and, foremost, as a show of the force the immigrant population wields here in the US. Ok, that's fine with me. People here (let me correct that, citizens) in the United States have the right to assemble and petition their government, derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's healthy and I encourage it as a public good.
One issue I have with the boycott is the way in which these groups are attempting to manipulate the children of this nation. These most vulnerable among us are eager to belong to a cause, make a difference in improving the world, and take, frankly, defiant action. Hitler certainly capitalized on this weakness of children. If you want to boycott work and school fine, if you want to make your kids do the same, fine, but don't think for one second the parents of this nation are going to let you turn our children against us. Hitler did that too. Oh and by the way, most Americans agree with me.
Where to start? First, read my initial post on this topic. CSPAN had Juan Jose Gutierrez from Latino Movement USA on Washington Journal this morning and my first response is "wow." Please excuse the absence of a link to a website for Latino Movement USA. I could not find one.
Apparently, a call has gone out from pro-illegal immigration groups for all immigrants to boycott work, school, etc. on Monday, May 1st as a show of solidarity with the plight of the 20 million illegal immigrants in this country and, foremost, as a show of the force the immigrant population wields here in the US. Ok, that's fine with me. People here (let me correct that, citizens) in the United States have the right to assemble and petition their government, derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's healthy and I encourage it as a public good.
One issue I have with the boycott is the way in which these groups are attempting to manipulate the children of this nation. These most vulnerable among us are eager to belong to a cause, make a difference in improving the world, and take, frankly, defiant action. Hitler certainly capitalized on this weakness of children. If you want to boycott work and school fine, if you want to make your kids do the same, fine, but don't think for one second the parents of this nation are going to let you turn our children against us. Hitler did that too. Oh and by the way, most Americans agree with me.
I have several issues with what Mr. Gutierrez had to say. First, he spoke about the United States stealing land from Mexico in the 1800s yet asserted "we are you," "we are America." Second, he mentioned civil war. Finally, Mr. Gutierrez asserted in a number of ways illegal immigrants are somehow entitled to the protections of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments. Let's take these one at a time.
To imply the southwestern portion of the United States was stolen from Mexico and at the same time purport illegal immigrants want to embrace American culture and ideals is patently absurd. You can't call us theives and imply entitlement to land while also arguing for admittance to land you claim is already yours. It's ridiculous. If you want to argue the land is yours, be my guest, and good luck. If you want to argue you should be admitted to the US don't assert part of our country is actually yours already.
Mr. Gutierrez also suggested if the United States attempts to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants the result would be civil war. That was a mistake. First, by definition you can't have a civil war with an invading force. Civil war is defined as: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." If you're not a citizen of this country you can't participate in a civil war with citizens, no matter how much you want to. If he thinks the people of this nation will fight amonst themselves for the rights of illegal immigrants he is sorely mistaken. I direct you once again to the Zogby poll.
And don't threaten me with war, because I've got news for you, if the illegal immigrant population forms an army to take rights by force I'll be the first man on the line fighting to preserve the sovereignty of this nation and to protect my family.
On several occassions Mr. Gutierrez refers to illegal immigrants being entitled to certain rights under the Constitution. Clearly, he missed the day in civics class they introduced the Constitution.
4.26.2006
Narrow-Minded Pompous Self-Righteous Professors
So I've been terribly remiss in my blogging duties. It's been a very busy week. With a mere three days remaining in my learning career, I would like to reflect on the hypocrisy that is (most of) the faculty of the Neag School of Education. Here's the issue: they purport to be open to discussion, favor inclusion of all students, and support democracy yet their classes are run like like fascist municipalities supporting communist doctrine and suppressing all attempts at independent thought.
My latest exercise in futility was to question the universality and salience of the gender gap argument in present day America. Since the 1970s, liberals have asserted women are disadvantaged when seeking adminttance to college and in the job market. Surely this was true in the past, as was supported by much empirical evidence. However, much of this research is sorely outdated and the question remains, is this still true? Or at least, is this as true? Current articles (1) , (2), (3), suggest perhaps the answer is no to the latter.
Is this definitive evidence? Not necessarily, but it at least invites discussion of the changing thoughts on the subject. None of this current research was presented in class. It wasn't even mentioned and what we got was a skewed representation of reality. We were presented with one very extreme viewpoint and dissenting views were silenced. This, on its face, is contradictory to the schools supposed values. As it usually does, it gets worse.
In response to my e-mail sending these links to my professor and classmates, in what I would say was a very respectful e-mail, I received a link to a contrary viewpoint from my professor from a somewhat dubious source. Who is this veritable font of knowledge to counter the findings of The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and The Week Magazine you ask? Danica McKellar. What? You don't know her. I think you do. Remember Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years? That's her and she has some opinions on women in science you'd better listen to or she won't kiss Fred Savage ever again.
Alright she's got a degree in math and she did some great proof. That's admirable, but is she an expert on the gender gap? Does she have any evidence to back up her claims? Is this even a reasonable source to counter the articles I submitted? Why was it necessary to send a counter article when this viewpoint was emphatically represented in class? She also sent a link to what appears to be someone's posting in a discussion forum. Is this much better than Winnie's opinion?
This is my problem with professors. Their arguments are often weak and do not stand up to scrutiny so they narrow conversation to articles supporting their views. I think that's one of the major facets of facism is it not? That's certainly not democracy. Do you want these people teaching your children? Worse yet, do you want them indoctrinating the people who will teach your children? I certainly don't.
My latest exercise in futility was to question the universality and salience of the gender gap argument in present day America. Since the 1970s, liberals have asserted women are disadvantaged when seeking adminttance to college and in the job market. Surely this was true in the past, as was supported by much empirical evidence. However, much of this research is sorely outdated and the question remains, is this still true? Or at least, is this as true? Current articles (1) , (2), (3), suggest perhaps the answer is no to the latter.
Is this definitive evidence? Not necessarily, but it at least invites discussion of the changing thoughts on the subject. None of this current research was presented in class. It wasn't even mentioned and what we got was a skewed representation of reality. We were presented with one very extreme viewpoint and dissenting views were silenced. This, on its face, is contradictory to the schools supposed values. As it usually does, it gets worse.
In response to my e-mail sending these links to my professor and classmates, in what I would say was a very respectful e-mail, I received a link to a contrary viewpoint from my professor from a somewhat dubious source. Who is this veritable font of knowledge to counter the findings of The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and The Week Magazine you ask? Danica McKellar. What? You don't know her. I think you do. Remember Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years? That's her and she has some opinions on women in science you'd better listen to or she won't kiss Fred Savage ever again.
Alright she's got a degree in math and she did some great proof. That's admirable, but is she an expert on the gender gap? Does she have any evidence to back up her claims? Is this even a reasonable source to counter the articles I submitted? Why was it necessary to send a counter article when this viewpoint was emphatically represented in class? She also sent a link to what appears to be someone's posting in a discussion forum. Is this much better than Winnie's opinion?
This is my problem with professors. Their arguments are often weak and do not stand up to scrutiny so they narrow conversation to articles supporting their views. I think that's one of the major facets of facism is it not? That's certainly not democracy. Do you want these people teaching your children? Worse yet, do you want them indoctrinating the people who will teach your children? I certainly don't.
4.22.2006
The Stories We Tell
So as I will probably do very often, I'm going to plug the radio show This American Life. It's awesome. I stream the old shows when I'm at work on the weekends and there isn't anybody else on the entire floor. I was listening to this show about reruns. There's a whole segment on the stories we tell over and over and it made me think of the stories I tell and the stories my family never hesitates to tell me.
Here's one of my own and perhaps tomorrow I will write about one my family tells:
One story I love to tell and have perhaps told every person I've ever talked to is what I reminiscently call the pie story. So it goes like this: My girlfriend at the time just got a Pampered Chef stoneware pie plate for some occasion from her cousin's wife. She'd be the first to tell you she wasn't really much of a cook but she was excited to try out her new pie dish.
[aside]Thinking back, she probably thought it was magic because pies are hard to make, even after years of practice. Plus she was making it in an electric oven which usually let the temperature sort of float around where you set it. Kind of the like the oven said "eh...close enough."[/aside]
Anyway, she puts the crust in and the filling, it was a cherry pie, and puts it in the oven when she gets a call from a friend who asks her to come over.
[aside]I think they had to round up some kittens that got loose.[/aside]
I was messing around on the computer which was in the living room, adjacent to the kitchen. She asked me to watch the pie and said "the only thing you need to do is take it out when the timer goes off." This was apparently beyond the scope of my job description as will soon become clear. She heads off.
Minutes go by and the timer goes off. I take the pie out of the oven and lay it gingerly on the top of the stove, proud that I was able to accomplish this most basic of tasks and noting to myself how delicious the pie looked and how impressed I was she was able to make such a picture perfect pie on her first attempt.
Time goes by and she's not back so I start to make dinner on my own. I think the plan was for lemon and dill salmon with broccoli. Anyway, I preheat the oven and start the water boiling for the broccoli then go back to the computer. More time passes and I hear a *pop* sound from the kitchen. I lean back in my chair and figure maybe some water had gotten out of the pot or something like that and went back to what I was doing. More time passes and I hear *CRACK* Not good...
Here's one of my own and perhaps tomorrow I will write about one my family tells:
One story I love to tell and have perhaps told every person I've ever talked to is what I reminiscently call the pie story. So it goes like this: My girlfriend at the time just got a Pampered Chef stoneware pie plate for some occasion from her cousin's wife. She'd be the first to tell you she wasn't really much of a cook but she was excited to try out her new pie dish.
[aside]Thinking back, she probably thought it was magic because pies are hard to make, even after years of practice. Plus she was making it in an electric oven which usually let the temperature sort of float around where you set it. Kind of the like the oven said "eh...close enough."[/aside]
Anyway, she puts the crust in and the filling, it was a cherry pie, and puts it in the oven when she gets a call from a friend who asks her to come over.
[aside]I think they had to round up some kittens that got loose.[/aside]
I was messing around on the computer which was in the living room, adjacent to the kitchen. She asked me to watch the pie and said "the only thing you need to do is take it out when the timer goes off." This was apparently beyond the scope of my job description as will soon become clear. She heads off.
Minutes go by and the timer goes off. I take the pie out of the oven and lay it gingerly on the top of the stove, proud that I was able to accomplish this most basic of tasks and noting to myself how delicious the pie looked and how impressed I was she was able to make such a picture perfect pie on her first attempt.
Time goes by and she's not back so I start to make dinner on my own. I think the plan was for lemon and dill salmon with broccoli. Anyway, I preheat the oven and start the water boiling for the broccoli then go back to the computer. More time passes and I hear a *pop* sound from the kitchen. I lean back in my chair and figure maybe some water had gotten out of the pot or something like that and went back to what I was doing. More time passes and I hear *CRACK* Not good...
I run into the kitchen to find I turned the wrong burner on and broke the pie dish, the contents of which were seeping ever so slowly beneath the electric burner. I shut the burner off and began to contemplate a reasonable excuse for having been so incredibly stupid. While I debate this in my mind, reality interrupts when the pie ignites. The burner didn't cool down fast enough and the ever-so-sugary filling of the cherry pie leaking through the gaping crack in the pie plate combined to produce a stunning display of culinary fireworks. Being the level-headed guy that I am, I panicked and began to spray water on the flaming pie. Brilliant. So the once picturesque pie was reduced to a sweet brown charred and soggy mess.
Needless to say, she didn't think it was funny.
So if you have a story you always tell or one your family always repeats about you respond to this post with it. Could it really be worse than the pie story!?
4.21.2006
How to know if the guy you're dating is a bachelor...
I have been remiss in my blogging duties. I've had many things to talk about but just haven't had the time. Anyway, the following is a list of things bachelors do. Now don't assume these are all about me, they might be my roommate...
In no particular order, he's probably a bachelor if:
In no particular order, he's probably a bachelor if:
- -his bathroom doubles as a library with an extensive array of periodicals
- -there is no toilet paper...anywhere
- -the only things in the shower are a bottle of suave and a bar of irish spring
- -clothes are neatly arranged by level of smelliness in piles on the floor (Hmm, I could wear this at least once more...)
- -the garbage can is huge yet somehow always full
- -the living room couch has been handed down so many times no one remembers who actually bought it
- -mail can be found almost anywhere, on a counter, on the stove, on the stairs, in a tree, in a box, with a fox...
- -things like peanut butter and cereal become "dinner" foods
- -cereal boxes invariable feature cartoon characters which are perhaps the reason they were purchased
- -there is always beer but there is never any milk...ever
- -the wireless phone is always mysteriously missing and never finds its way back to the charger
- -no one knocks before entering the house
- -there's a PS2 is in the living room
- -the only furniture in the house is the previously mentioned couch from bachelors past, a coffee table so old, scratched, and stained it sits incognito under a tablecloth, and a recliner
- -every light is always on, even in the daytime or during a supernova
- -he can get dressed in any room including the kitchen and the sun room
- -none of the windows have blinds, shutters, shades, or any other man-made device to keep people from seeing in
- -he has his own blog he updates often
This is just a short list. Please feel free to add as you see fit.
4.16.2006
The Religion Paradox
Happy Easter!! Today being Easter and all, I thought it would be appropriate for the day's diatribe to involve religion. I have noticed a trend in dating over the last year paralleling a similarly motivated shift in political rhetoric over the past 6 years, namely the role of religion in each. Certainly there has been a thorough discussion of the role of religion and its impact on politics but I have yet to see a single story on religion and dating. (I apologize for those of you reading this who have heard this story, just move on to another post)
It is certainly possible my string of recent experiences with religion and dating are coincidental but I think not. Different guys like different sorts of girls. It just so happens I prefer nice girls who have a certain amount of self-respect and treat other people with a modicum of respect and appreciation (among many other qualities less relevant to this discussion). I blame it on the The Religion Paradox: Not-so-religious guy likes nice girls. Nice girls are religious. Religious girls like religious guys. And round and round we go.
Sure it's a stereotype and I would like to be proven wrong but that's just not the trend I'm seeing.
[Aside]A saying of my great-grandmother's sums it up nicely: "Watch how she treats service people because one day, that will be how she treats you." Since hearing that I've found nice girls do treat service people like human beings and it really does reflect their general character. Girls take note.[/Aside]
Alright so how bad could it be?
Story 1: Worked with a nice girl. Very smart, pretty. Very fun to work with. So one day I ask her out. We catch a movie, grab something to eat. I think it's going good. A few days later I talk to her and she says "I really had a great time but you're not muslim." Which wasn't news to me but for her it was a deal-breaker.
Story 2: Another girl I work with. (If you have the impression there are all these great girls running around where I work you're just wrong. With 30,0000 employees roaming the cubicle mazes there's bound to be one or two nice girls who got lost though.) I'd talk to her on the phone for work stuff a lot and we'd talk about other things too. One day I asked her to lunch. We talked for a while and it was going well, I thought. So I ask her if she'd want to hang out, I can't remember what it was though, something fun. She said she didn't date people who didn't go to her church.
[Aside] The interesting thing to note is there are apparently only like 7 people who go to her church making the pickins awfully slim. I know this only because my roommate is actually seeing her...and going to her church, though I can tell you, he has no interest in her religion and has much less savory intentions than I had. [/Aside]
So there you have it. The nice girls I've met all happen to be pretty religious, which to me is fine. That's great and I accept and appreciate their beliefs but I'm not terribly religious. What I've found is that mutual acceptance of belief systems doesn't run both ways, as is the case with so many issues unfortunately.
(Update: A strangely applicable Meet the Press you can watch online)
It is certainly possible my string of recent experiences with religion and dating are coincidental but I think not. Different guys like different sorts of girls. It just so happens I prefer nice girls who have a certain amount of self-respect and treat other people with a modicum of respect and appreciation (among many other qualities less relevant to this discussion). I blame it on the The Religion Paradox: Not-so-religious guy likes nice girls. Nice girls are religious. Religious girls like religious guys. And round and round we go.
Sure it's a stereotype and I would like to be proven wrong but that's just not the trend I'm seeing.
[Aside]A saying of my great-grandmother's sums it up nicely: "Watch how she treats service people because one day, that will be how she treats you." Since hearing that I've found nice girls do treat service people like human beings and it really does reflect their general character. Girls take note.[/Aside]
Alright so how bad could it be?
Story 1: Worked with a nice girl. Very smart, pretty. Very fun to work with. So one day I ask her out. We catch a movie, grab something to eat. I think it's going good. A few days later I talk to her and she says "I really had a great time but you're not muslim." Which wasn't news to me but for her it was a deal-breaker.
Story 2: Another girl I work with. (If you have the impression there are all these great girls running around where I work you're just wrong. With 30,0000 employees roaming the cubicle mazes there's bound to be one or two nice girls who got lost though.) I'd talk to her on the phone for work stuff a lot and we'd talk about other things too. One day I asked her to lunch. We talked for a while and it was going well, I thought. So I ask her if she'd want to hang out, I can't remember what it was though, something fun. She said she didn't date people who didn't go to her church.
[Aside] The interesting thing to note is there are apparently only like 7 people who go to her church making the pickins awfully slim. I know this only because my roommate is actually seeing her...and going to her church, though I can tell you, he has no interest in her religion and has much less savory intentions than I had. [/Aside]
So there you have it. The nice girls I've met all happen to be pretty religious, which to me is fine. That's great and I accept and appreciate their beliefs but I'm not terribly religious. What I've found is that mutual acceptance of belief systems doesn't run both ways, as is the case with so many issues unfortunately.
(Update: A strangely applicable Meet the Press you can watch online)
4.15.2006
The Allure of Being Mean
I was listening to one of my favorite radio shows today when it dawned on me what to write about, the benefits of being mean. No, I'm not mean. At least I don't think I am. I'm thinking about how great mean looks from the outside looking in. This story is exactly my point (From This American Life, Public Radio International). Click the link then skip to 23:16 and listen to the story about the waitress. Basically, she was getting terrible tips because she was too nice, so she gave up, stopped caring and Ta Da! good tips again. What is it about treating people badly that makes them like you so much?
The other day I had someone I work with say "You're the nicest guy I've ever known. Really." I thought that was a nice thing to say but it doesn't really get you anywhere. For some reason nice guys are people you call your friend but you don't actually want to hang out with them.
Another case in point: my friend. He is really bad when it comes to relationships with women. He just doesn't care what they think or what they want. Now I listen to him decide how he is going to handle a situation and I just shake my head in amazement but it always works out. It's uncanny and It's just not right. Dating two girls at once. Fine. Tell one of them you were gone last weekend because you went to visit the other one. No problem. Balance those two and a relationship with a married woman. Couldn't be better.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why this works because I'm seriously considering this strategy. It's certainly less work and it's got a better track record.
The other day I had someone I work with say "You're the nicest guy I've ever known. Really." I thought that was a nice thing to say but it doesn't really get you anywhere. For some reason nice guys are people you call your friend but you don't actually want to hang out with them.
Another case in point: my friend. He is really bad when it comes to relationships with women. He just doesn't care what they think or what they want. Now I listen to him decide how he is going to handle a situation and I just shake my head in amazement but it always works out. It's uncanny and It's just not right. Dating two girls at once. Fine. Tell one of them you were gone last weekend because you went to visit the other one. No problem. Balance those two and a relationship with a married woman. Couldn't be better.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why this works because I'm seriously considering this strategy. It's certainly less work and it's got a better track record.
4.14.2006
Happy Good Friday Everybody!
Hope you got the day off. I did not. In fact, I was blessed with a 27 page paper and 6 hours of work. Maybe I'll have good luck in cards later tonight...
4.13.2006
Cell Phones - A situation of life or death!!
Ok so this was a recent conversation I had with my sister on IM. She's trying to convince me having a cell phone can be the difference between life and death in a reasonable circumstance because my parents don't want to replace her broken phone:
Sister: you are driving on the road and your car spins out of control, it is upside down in a ditch and you cant get out without hurting yourself more, no one saw, it was on a back road... so you reach for your cell phone and its NOT THERE!!
Me: was the cell phone in my pocket?
Sister: does it make a diffrence?
Me:would i ask the question if it didnt?
Sister: okay wait.. evermind .. you just dont have a cell phone
Me:hehe ok
Me: that's a good one. gimme a sec
Sister: ok
Me: ok i'll give you that one. if you are driving late at night, the car spins out of control, it lands in a ditch in such a way so that you can't get out and by some twist of fate no one in the universe heard or saw the crash and you still have the function of your arms and legs to actually get to your cell phone, sure it could be a matter of life and death...
Sister: see
Sister: i win
Me: sure
Me: you win
Sister: hehe
Me: with that ridiculously unlikely, yet valid, example
Sister: you are driving on the road and your car spins out of control, it is upside down in a ditch and you cant get out without hurting yourself more, no one saw, it was on a back road... so you reach for your cell phone and its NOT THERE!!
Me: was the cell phone in my pocket?
Sister: does it make a diffrence?
Me:would i ask the question if it didnt?
Sister: okay wait.. evermind .. you just dont have a cell phone
Me:hehe ok
Me: that's a good one. gimme a sec
Sister: ok
Me: ok i'll give you that one. if you are driving late at night, the car spins out of control, it lands in a ditch in such a way so that you can't get out and by some twist of fate no one in the universe heard or saw the crash and you still have the function of your arms and legs to actually get to your cell phone, sure it could be a matter of life and death...
Sister: see
Sister: i win
Me: sure
Me: you win
Sister: hehe
Me: with that ridiculously unlikely, yet valid, example
4.12.2006
Problems of Personality Paradox
So on the way to work this morning I had a strange epiphany. I realized I was drinking a delicious grande bold coffee from Starbucks while singing along to the Grateful Dead blasting out of my radio. Drinking the epitome of 21st century yuppie beverages while listening to '60s marijuana counter-culture legends was enough to make me laugh out loud.
4.09.2006
Health Insurance...lest you think me too conservative
Alright Massachusetts! After years of being Connecticut's bumbling older sister (I'm too polite to mention The Big Dig catastrophe) you've finally come up with something I think I like. No not that, let's not get crazy. I'm talking about universal health care, at least in Massachusetts. I'll admit, I was a bit skeptical of a plan that calls itself universal simply by requiring people to purchase health insurance but thankfully there is more too it than that. It actually includes something I've been saying for some time, we're paying for health care for the people who can't afford it outright so why does everyone get so uptight when we talk about government subsidies? This is central to the proposal.
Here's the plan:
1) Require all MA residents to purchase health insurance and impose fines on individuals and employers with more than 10 employees who do not purchase it. The fines are equal to 50% of what the premium would be. (Don't worry there's more)
2) Individuals making under $29,000 get a pass. No premium, no deductible with tiered subsidies as family incomes increase.
Aside from being humane, it just makes sense. With more people buying into the system and hospitals not getting stuck with the bill, health insurance rates will decrease making health care more affordable for everyone in the long run and decreasing the system's dependence on state subsidies.
Sure some people have some concerns but I think it is an aggressive plan with real potential to change the system fundamentally and get the health care situation under control. So I'm all for it, in fact I'm jealous MA thought of it first, but universal health care is about as liberal an issue as you can get so don't think I favor conservatism too much. Now if we could just get that illegal immigration under control....
Here's the plan:
1) Require all MA residents to purchase health insurance and impose fines on individuals and employers with more than 10 employees who do not purchase it. The fines are equal to 50% of what the premium would be. (Don't worry there's more)
2) Individuals making under $29,000 get a pass. No premium, no deductible with tiered subsidies as family incomes increase.
Aside from being humane, it just makes sense. With more people buying into the system and hospitals not getting stuck with the bill, health insurance rates will decrease making health care more affordable for everyone in the long run and decreasing the system's dependence on state subsidies.
Sure some people have some concerns but I think it is an aggressive plan with real potential to change the system fundamentally and get the health care situation under control. So I'm all for it, in fact I'm jealous MA thought of it first, but universal health care is about as liberal an issue as you can get so don't think I favor conservatism too much. Now if we could just get that illegal immigration under control....
4.08.2006
A job search is just like dating...
If you think about it, it's really true. The process of applying, interviewing, and accepting or rejecting a job is eerily similar to dating. First, I will explain the similarities, then I will support them with my recent experience (in the job search, not dating).
Applying
Most people looking for a job, at least one worth pursuing, need to apply formally usually by filling out a form provided by the employer. The application includes things like marital status, education history, transcripts, work history, and some sort of personal statement depending on the field of employment.
It's not a huge jump to draw some parallels to dating. If you're being setup you can almost hear the conversation with your friend evaluating the unwritten application for your company "What does he do for a living? How long have you known him? What was his last relationship like? He better not be married!"
Interviewing
If the employer thinks you're worth hiring they'll invite you to a formal interview. These can often be intimate meetings with one or two individuals asking fiercely personal questions about your life philosophy in some attempt to assertain your competency, as if an hour long meeting can really tell you much no matter what the questions. At the end of the interview the employer will either offer you a position or invite you to another interview for further interrogation.
For dating, if you're courageous enough to approach a complete stranger, the application is the interview. This time you're applying for the privilege to buy her a drink or share her table. In a second she sizes up your clothes, demeanor, looks, fertility, agenda, estimated net worth and future earning potential. It's true! If she doesn't blow you off, you're in! You got the interview and the ensuing conversation decides whether you get to the next interview...the next date.
The same applies to the blind date situation except the application process takes place before the interview and the employer feels compelled to see the interview through to its completion for no other reason than to be respectful to the reference (in other words, the mutual friend that set you up). At the end of the first date she decides if you get another date or not.
The Offer
When you're offered a position the balance of power changes slightly. The employer presents a contract or formal offer indicating an acceptance of your potential and expresses a desire to continue the relationship. Of course, accepting the position is easy you feel the employer offers a valuable opportunity, or if you've been out of work for a while, just a paycheck. Everyone goes away smiles and you continue employment until such time as one party is unsatisfied with the arranged situation.
Though the process to this point clearly advantages the employer, the interviewee is also evaluating the employer. If, during the process, you feel the employer is impolite, excessively critical, or does not offer the compensation package you anticipated you may reject the offer. Given the face-to-face nature of the interview, this can be awkward. If you express reluctance in accepting the position on the spot, or if you're sure the job isn't a good fit and you refuse immediately following the interview, the employer will most likely not be pleased and perhaps get angry or hurt you felt the position was not good enough for you or worth your time and effort to further your career.
Again, this situation is familiar to those not far removed from the dating scene. You meet a blind date or pick up a girl at a coffee shop, convince her to go out with you, and at the end of the night you realize you have made perhaps the worst choice in human history. She casually refers to her seemingly endless string of militantly jealous, felonious boyfriends recently released from the state's accommodations, her recent crusade to end the exploitation of workers for a company whose jeans she is wearing, and her theories on why Einstein was smart but not cute enough to be important. No matter how bad it goes it's always uncomfortable to communicate you have no inclination to see this person...ever. So you say "Oh yeah, I'll give you a call." I'll get right on that.
Applying
Most people looking for a job, at least one worth pursuing, need to apply formally usually by filling out a form provided by the employer. The application includes things like marital status, education history, transcripts, work history, and some sort of personal statement depending on the field of employment.
It's not a huge jump to draw some parallels to dating. If you're being setup you can almost hear the conversation with your friend evaluating the unwritten application for your company "What does he do for a living? How long have you known him? What was his last relationship like? He better not be married!"
Interviewing
If the employer thinks you're worth hiring they'll invite you to a formal interview. These can often be intimate meetings with one or two individuals asking fiercely personal questions about your life philosophy in some attempt to assertain your competency, as if an hour long meeting can really tell you much no matter what the questions. At the end of the interview the employer will either offer you a position or invite you to another interview for further interrogation.
For dating, if you're courageous enough to approach a complete stranger, the application is the interview. This time you're applying for the privilege to buy her a drink or share her table. In a second she sizes up your clothes, demeanor, looks, fertility, agenda, estimated net worth and future earning potential. It's true! If she doesn't blow you off, you're in! You got the interview and the ensuing conversation decides whether you get to the next interview...the next date.
The same applies to the blind date situation except the application process takes place before the interview and the employer feels compelled to see the interview through to its completion for no other reason than to be respectful to the reference (in other words, the mutual friend that set you up). At the end of the first date she decides if you get another date or not.
The Offer
When you're offered a position the balance of power changes slightly. The employer presents a contract or formal offer indicating an acceptance of your potential and expresses a desire to continue the relationship. Of course, accepting the position is easy you feel the employer offers a valuable opportunity, or if you've been out of work for a while, just a paycheck. Everyone goes away smiles and you continue employment until such time as one party is unsatisfied with the arranged situation.
Though the process to this point clearly advantages the employer, the interviewee is also evaluating the employer. If, during the process, you feel the employer is impolite, excessively critical, or does not offer the compensation package you anticipated you may reject the offer. Given the face-to-face nature of the interview, this can be awkward. If you express reluctance in accepting the position on the spot, or if you're sure the job isn't a good fit and you refuse immediately following the interview, the employer will most likely not be pleased and perhaps get angry or hurt you felt the position was not good enough for you or worth your time and effort to further your career.
Again, this situation is familiar to those not far removed from the dating scene. You meet a blind date or pick up a girl at a coffee shop, convince her to go out with you, and at the end of the night you realize you have made perhaps the worst choice in human history. She casually refers to her seemingly endless string of militantly jealous, felonious boyfriends recently released from the state's accommodations, her recent crusade to end the exploitation of workers for a company whose jeans she is wearing, and her theories on why Einstein was smart but not cute enough to be important. No matter how bad it goes it's always uncomfortable to communicate you have no inclination to see this person...ever. So you say "Oh yeah, I'll give you a call." I'll get right on that.
4.06.2006
Frost
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
-Robert Frost
This is by far my favorite Frost poem. We stumble through life rebuilding walls. You try to tear down the walls but they get built back up. Everytime a bit higher, the stones get bigger, heavier.
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
-Robert Frost
This is by far my favorite Frost poem. We stumble through life rebuilding walls. You try to tear down the walls but they get built back up. Everytime a bit higher, the stones get bigger, heavier.
Honesty the best policy?
Well it worked for the president didn't it? Maybe I don't mean honesty, perhaps sincerity is more appropriate. Honesty is saying what you believe to be true while sincerity is communicating not only what you believe to be true but that you actually believe it to be true.
It's kind of an ongoing theme with me and school but it applied yesterday too during my interviews. As far as school goes, speaking my mind has always been a problem, especially in high school. Not only could I not keep my mouth shut but I also was not careful about how I phrased things. It definitely hurt me. I had not one but two teachers stand up in Honors Society meetings to explicitly state I should not be a member because of my behavior. I didn't get in. Not a big deal actually but indicative of the trouble I got myself into.
In college it's been different but in many ways the same. If something doesn't make sense to me I need to understand it. I can't just let it go so I question professors, their message, their method, their grading. I don't do it to be a pain, I do it so I can understand and often it's not easy but I really try. As in high school, I say things sometimes in ways people don't like and it ends up causing me a lot of extra problems, like with my methods class and with the research class and then I have to deal with the consequences but I don't think I'll ever stop. It's just part of who I am and secretly, I'm proud of it. Not that people take offense or that it causes me difficulty but that I can say I left it all out there and tried to get the answers even if I don't get there. I feel like a lot of the people I talk to at work and students in the school of education can't say that. They talk about professors and say they're ridiculous for a variety of reasons but they make no effort to try and understand why they do what they do. To me that's disingenuous. It's dishonest to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in class and then bash the professor during the break. I just can't do that and I don't really trust the people that do. Other students get annoyed with it, I can tell. Some say they think I'm just being difficult. It's very frustrating. Perhaps my sincerity is good but carried to a fault.
As a future teacher I think sincerity can be a real advantage. For some reason kids are really good at detecting BS. It's like a switch that when BS is input it shuts off their respect and listening mechanisms. You can see it on the faces of the kids in classes with teachers that do this. They have lost all respect and they're not engaged. An interview I had yesterday supports my point.
I met with a vice-principal who didn't seem too friendly at first. She asked me a couple of questions and my response to one in particular I think changed the direction of the interview. She asked me what three words (or phrases) students would use to describe me as a teacher. I thought about it for a minute and then said professional, flexible, and engaging. Though I did make the point they probably wouldn't use the word engaging and I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone outside of education who I've ever heard use it except perhaps in reference to military combat. Anyway, I answered honestly because I think that's what they would say. I didn't say I'd be their favorite teacher necessarily or that I'd be incredibly 'dynamic' or 'hilarious' but those are the three things I strive to balance and measure my performance against. She liked the answer a lot. I could tell by the way she responded to it, her body language, and how she took longer to respond to my answer than I did to her question. After that, the interview was cake and at the end she said she usually gives first-time interviewers advice to help them in their future meetings. She said I was great and she specifically said sincere. It was the best compliment she could've given me.
It's kind of an ongoing theme with me and school but it applied yesterday too during my interviews. As far as school goes, speaking my mind has always been a problem, especially in high school. Not only could I not keep my mouth shut but I also was not careful about how I phrased things. It definitely hurt me. I had not one but two teachers stand up in Honors Society meetings to explicitly state I should not be a member because of my behavior. I didn't get in. Not a big deal actually but indicative of the trouble I got myself into.
In college it's been different but in many ways the same. If something doesn't make sense to me I need to understand it. I can't just let it go so I question professors, their message, their method, their grading. I don't do it to be a pain, I do it so I can understand and often it's not easy but I really try. As in high school, I say things sometimes in ways people don't like and it ends up causing me a lot of extra problems, like with my methods class and with the research class and then I have to deal with the consequences but I don't think I'll ever stop. It's just part of who I am and secretly, I'm proud of it. Not that people take offense or that it causes me difficulty but that I can say I left it all out there and tried to get the answers even if I don't get there. I feel like a lot of the people I talk to at work and students in the school of education can't say that. They talk about professors and say they're ridiculous for a variety of reasons but they make no effort to try and understand why they do what they do. To me that's disingenuous. It's dishonest to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in class and then bash the professor during the break. I just can't do that and I don't really trust the people that do. Other students get annoyed with it, I can tell. Some say they think I'm just being difficult. It's very frustrating. Perhaps my sincerity is good but carried to a fault.
As a future teacher I think sincerity can be a real advantage. For some reason kids are really good at detecting BS. It's like a switch that when BS is input it shuts off their respect and listening mechanisms. You can see it on the faces of the kids in classes with teachers that do this. They have lost all respect and they're not engaged. An interview I had yesterday supports my point.
I met with a vice-principal who didn't seem too friendly at first. She asked me a couple of questions and my response to one in particular I think changed the direction of the interview. She asked me what three words (or phrases) students would use to describe me as a teacher. I thought about it for a minute and then said professional, flexible, and engaging. Though I did make the point they probably wouldn't use the word engaging and I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone outside of education who I've ever heard use it except perhaps in reference to military combat. Anyway, I answered honestly because I think that's what they would say. I didn't say I'd be their favorite teacher necessarily or that I'd be incredibly 'dynamic' or 'hilarious' but those are the three things I strive to balance and measure my performance against. She liked the answer a lot. I could tell by the way she responded to it, her body language, and how she took longer to respond to my answer than I did to her question. After that, the interview was cake and at the end she said she usually gives first-time interviewers advice to help them in their future meetings. She said I was great and she specifically said sincere. It was the best compliment she could've given me.
4.03.2006
Immigration
Alright, I've had it. The current debate over immigration reform is insanity. Here's the president and the Judiciary's plans: let's take the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and give them legal status, yeah we'll charge them a $2000 fine and back taxes too. Hey, if you have no criminal record and learn English we'll even let you be citizens. Wow that's swell. Oh yeah we're also going to setup a "guest-worker" program allotting some 400,000 work permits for future citizens-to-be.
Ok so what's the problem with this? Well just who is our government working for? I could've sworn citizens got to vote, not illegal immigrants who take to the streets in the most egregious display of arrogance I can recall. Wait, I spoke too soon lest I forget the move in some states to award illegal immigrants (referred to generously as "undocumented") in-state tuition rates at state universities. What!? You're joking. Let's remember, they did show a blatant disregard for the laws of this nation and our sovereignty. So Bush is massaging the Latino vote to make nice with his Republican constituents and who else?
How about big business? Yeah, I get tired of hearing about how evil corporations are out to get us too but in this case there is some basis for concern. The Bush administration says immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want to do. Ok, I'll concede that point but why don't Americans want to do them? Lax border enforcement drives down wages making the jobs less palatable to Americans so to say these are jobs Americans don't want is not telling the whole story. If no one was doing the jobs, businesses would need to raise wages to attract workers and avoid going out of business. Businesses that employ illegal immigrants don't pay taxes or benefits, nada zip. The illegal immigrants don't pay taxes or for benefits, zero. To be sure we're clear, illegal immigrants drive down wages thereby contracting the job market while enjoying the advantage of local, state, and federal services they don't pay for all while enjoying free health care. So Bush serves big business in this case by allowing for a steady stream of low-wage workers. Yes, they'll have to pay taxes now but at least they're cheap. Oh and we're not going to enforce the border so you can keep those illegal immigrants too.
And just how are we going to collect back taxes on people we have no idea have been here or how much they earned? That of course is a transparent attempt to placate those with views to the right of this plan.
Might I remind those of us with short memories we tried this before. 1986 - legalized 3 million illegal immigrants and it has done anything but solve the problem. Now we have 4 times as many and this is the best solution they can come up with? Last year illegal immigrants cost United States tax-payers $60,000,000,000 (NPR). The National Review Online is right when they said the Judiciary Committee "decided to tell the American people to shove it."
I don't think throwing them all in jail, as the House proposed, is any better. 11 million newly charged felons * $20,000/year to house a convict = $220 billion a year. That's a lot of crunk and it doesn't include the cost to locate and take illegal immigrants into custody. I don't really think that's what Republicans meant anyway. What they probably think operationally would be to charge new illegal aliens with felonies but the formula is the same, just smaller numbers compounded over a number of years.
So what do we do? (Brace yourself Republicans and Libertarians) The same thing we should do about the drug problem, lower consumption. If we don't want to buy drugs there's no drug problem. Analogously, if we don't employ illegal immigrants they'll stop coming over illegally. Let's take a close look at who is employing illegal immigrants and make them change their business practices. If you really believe in the free market then you don't need the crutch of illegally cheap labor. Now let's combine that with some actual enforcement of the border and we've got a viable, cost-effective solution.
Those who want to allow open borders and pay for services for all of North American who will call me a nativist, xenophobic, isolationist, Republiterian are just plain wrong. I don't like criminals whose crimes my family and I have to pay for and then having my morals questioned on that basis.
Ok so what's the problem with this? Well just who is our government working for? I could've sworn citizens got to vote, not illegal immigrants who take to the streets in the most egregious display of arrogance I can recall. Wait, I spoke too soon lest I forget the move in some states to award illegal immigrants (referred to generously as "undocumented") in-state tuition rates at state universities. What!? You're joking. Let's remember, they did show a blatant disregard for the laws of this nation and our sovereignty. So Bush is massaging the Latino vote to make nice with his Republican constituents and who else?
How about big business? Yeah, I get tired of hearing about how evil corporations are out to get us too but in this case there is some basis for concern. The Bush administration says immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want to do. Ok, I'll concede that point but why don't Americans want to do them? Lax border enforcement drives down wages making the jobs less palatable to Americans so to say these are jobs Americans don't want is not telling the whole story. If no one was doing the jobs, businesses would need to raise wages to attract workers and avoid going out of business. Businesses that employ illegal immigrants don't pay taxes or benefits, nada zip. The illegal immigrants don't pay taxes or for benefits, zero. To be sure we're clear, illegal immigrants drive down wages thereby contracting the job market while enjoying the advantage of local, state, and federal services they don't pay for all while enjoying free health care. So Bush serves big business in this case by allowing for a steady stream of low-wage workers. Yes, they'll have to pay taxes now but at least they're cheap. Oh and we're not going to enforce the border so you can keep those illegal immigrants too.
And just how are we going to collect back taxes on people we have no idea have been here or how much they earned? That of course is a transparent attempt to placate those with views to the right of this plan.
Might I remind those of us with short memories we tried this before. 1986 - legalized 3 million illegal immigrants and it has done anything but solve the problem. Now we have 4 times as many and this is the best solution they can come up with? Last year illegal immigrants cost United States tax-payers $60,000,000,000 (NPR). The National Review Online is right when they said the Judiciary Committee "decided to tell the American people to shove it."
I don't think throwing them all in jail, as the House proposed, is any better. 11 million newly charged felons * $20,000/year to house a convict = $220 billion a year. That's a lot of crunk and it doesn't include the cost to locate and take illegal immigrants into custody. I don't really think that's what Republicans meant anyway. What they probably think operationally would be to charge new illegal aliens with felonies but the formula is the same, just smaller numbers compounded over a number of years.
So what do we do? (Brace yourself Republicans and Libertarians) The same thing we should do about the drug problem, lower consumption. If we don't want to buy drugs there's no drug problem. Analogously, if we don't employ illegal immigrants they'll stop coming over illegally. Let's take a close look at who is employing illegal immigrants and make them change their business practices. If you really believe in the free market then you don't need the crutch of illegally cheap labor. Now let's combine that with some actual enforcement of the border and we've got a viable, cost-effective solution.
Those who want to allow open borders and pay for services for all of North American who will call me a nativist, xenophobic, isolationist, Republiterian are just plain wrong. I don't like criminals whose crimes my family and I have to pay for and then having my morals questioned on that basis.
4.02.2006
Family
What happened to marriage in this country? 50% of marriages end in divorce and 40% of first marriages do too. There are certainly cases of bad situations where someone needs to leave, some sort of abuse but, it's just too common to get divorced. Sure it's easy for me to pontificate being 24 and single, never married but I've been close. Twice girls said they wanted to marry me but both times I didn't pull the trigger, just wasn't sure enough to make that lifelong commitment. Yeah, that's right - lifelong. People don't seem to get that anymore.
I take issue with the perceived transitivity of marriage. If marriage is just another phase of a relationship in a mobius loop of date-live together-engage-marry-divorce-date-live together-engage-marry what's the point of marriage at all? Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on marriage, quite the opposite. That's one of the most important things I hope to accomplish in life. I just don't understand how we got to the point of individuality to the exclusion of partnership.
I take issue with the perceived transitivity of marriage. If marriage is just another phase of a relationship in a mobius loop of date-live together-engage-marry-divorce-date-live together-engage-marry what's the point of marriage at all? Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on marriage, quite the opposite. That's one of the most important things I hope to accomplish in life. I just don't understand how we got to the point of individuality to the exclusion of partnership.
3.27.2006
Welcome to ModernInsanity
So I finally caught up with the times and got my own blog. I have now joined the countless others who post their irrelevant opinions for the majority of the world to summarily ignore. Prepare for confused ramblings, thoughts of the day, and links to what I think is interesting.
One of my favorite publications is The Week Magazine Some stuff is on the web but most of it is in the magazine form only. They have a weekly section Good Week/Bad Week:
"It was a Bad Week for: Hispanic outreach, after Volkswagen decided to pull billboards promoting its new GTI as a car with 'Turbo-Cojones.' The company said it meant to convey that the GTI is 'a high performance sports car,' but complainants said 'cojones' still means 'balls' to them."
I'd drive a car called Turbo-Balls...
One of my favorite publications is The Week Magazine Some stuff is on the web but most of it is in the magazine form only. They have a weekly section Good Week/Bad Week:
"It was a Bad Week for: Hispanic outreach, after Volkswagen decided to pull billboards promoting its new GTI as a car with 'Turbo-Cojones.' The company said it meant to convey that the GTI is 'a high performance sports car,' but complainants said 'cojones' still means 'balls' to them."
I'd drive a car called Turbo-Balls...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
