Friday, March 2, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
that can be fixed...
That can be fixed, said the mechanic
It's not a total loss
But probably best to just replace it
When you consider the cost
It's not a total loss
But probably best to just replace it
When you consider the cost
Sunday, July 3, 2011
i wish i could talk to birds and they would listen
it's another one of those days where you waited till the end of the week to really get anything done because you were too busy eating and drinking and smoking to do much of anything but eat, drink, and smoke and now it's like a fuckin habit and, even though the real life shit you're taking care of only use about a tenth of your commendable brain, you'd really rather just focus all of it on which emoticon would be appropriate for the last text you got or, better yet, who's phone number that is and why she's so pissed off right now.
So, because trying to figure out what to do with your brain gets frustrating after a while and that leads to being annoyed at your brain for getting frustrated at itself and in the middle of all that, you're wondering when you began to refer to your brain in third person and if that means anything, like, maybe, you're fuckin crazy or some shit, but then you remember that grandma always said that crazy people don't think they're crazy and grandma was as crazy as a loon, so that's just another fuckin thing to use a tenth of your brain, although it is more interesting than philosophies of education, so you might double that to a fifth (are fractions the only thing you can double and the number goes down?), you say to yourself, "self, fuck it... we're gonna put a birdbath on our balcany".
and that would be a brilliant idea because birdbaths are baddass because all the little birds come flocking to YOUR balcony, like, they chose YOU ([even though it's actually more likely that they're programmed to respond to certain stimuli and you just happen to know what it is] don't get too excited just because you figured out that cute, tiny, little feathered things like to take baths)or some shit and they get all wet and make pretty noises and sometimes they'll even eat out of your hand which is really cool (because it is), but you're not stupid and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what's gonna happen: yeah, they're gonna shit all over your stuff and scratch up your things and wake you up early in the morning screeching "feed me~! feed me!" in their cute little bird language that nobody fucking understands and you're gonna end up sitting at your desk one day trying to write a fuckin essay and not really wanting to, letting your mind wander about whatthefuckever and you're gonna look out your window and think to yourself... "fuckin birds".
peace.
So, because trying to figure out what to do with your brain gets frustrating after a while and that leads to being annoyed at your brain for getting frustrated at itself and in the middle of all that, you're wondering when you began to refer to your brain in third person and if that means anything, like, maybe, you're fuckin crazy or some shit, but then you remember that grandma always said that crazy people don't think they're crazy and grandma was as crazy as a loon, so that's just another fuckin thing to use a tenth of your brain, although it is more interesting than philosophies of education, so you might double that to a fifth (are fractions the only thing you can double and the number goes down?), you say to yourself, "self, fuck it... we're gonna put a birdbath on our balcany".
and that would be a brilliant idea because birdbaths are baddass because all the little birds come flocking to YOUR balcony, like, they chose YOU ([even though it's actually more likely that they're programmed to respond to certain stimuli and you just happen to know what it is] don't get too excited just because you figured out that cute, tiny, little feathered things like to take baths)or some shit and they get all wet and make pretty noises and sometimes they'll even eat out of your hand which is really cool (because it is), but you're not stupid and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what's gonna happen: yeah, they're gonna shit all over your stuff and scratch up your things and wake you up early in the morning screeching "feed me~! feed me!" in their cute little bird language that nobody fucking understands and you're gonna end up sitting at your desk one day trying to write a fuckin essay and not really wanting to, letting your mind wander about whatthefuckever and you're gonna look out your window and think to yourself... "fuckin birds".
peace.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Dry Humping is For Everyone
I never really considered myself to be an intellectual, really? At best, as sort of collaborator of thoughts or somebody who collects ideas and gathers them into one place, considering each equally based on its own essence and, if able, avoiding placing them into independent categories, is what I am. Or, perhaps nothing more than a fool devoid of any original thought, much less the ability to do much of anything with the thoughts of others. In short, I’m not sure what I am capable of, but I seem to do okay once I get started and, like anyone else, I like to be heard. So, hear me now.
What the fuck? Seriously? Do you ever just take a second and look around at the world around you? No, this isn’t going to be a “starving pixies” monologue. You know, I’m not even sure what it’s gonna be, but It’s pissing me off already. So is almost everything else. Like animals. Animals piss me off, because everywhere they go, there’s drama, eventually. Yeah, they start off all cute and cuddly and you just can’t keep yourself from picking them up and loving on them, but you know deep inside that what started out as friendship is going to end in tragedy.
Any number of things could and will go wrong: 1) pissing in the floor, 2) chewing on shit, 3) scratching furniture, 4) making noise for no reason whatsoever, 5) taking over your bed, 6) demanding attention from your friends… all the sudden it’s not “Hey, Tom! What’s up?”… it’s “OMG, what a cute fucking puppy!”, which is, in some ways beneficial (like having a baby), because the hot chicks at the JC Penny think your just tits, but is mostly, really, just a hassle most days (I like babies, by the way) and you honestly can’t remember why you thought the little bastard was so cute to begin with, why you got it, and what the fuck you’re gonna do with it now.
If that doesn’t happen, i promise you that you will eventually get scratched, bit, humped, jumped on, growled at, or puked on at some point. And that, by itself wouldn’t be too bad, but it’s never by itself, is it? No. it’s always in conjunction with one of the afore mentioned negative aspects (yes, I said “afore” – fuck off), which only magnifies the trauma associated with being humped by a four-legged animal that, like people, just wants to rub it’s private parts all over something.
And that pisses me off, too, because when a dog does it, it’s annoying, but everyone just either pretends it isn’t happening or they excuse it away, like “oh, he’s just in heat”. And, while I’m used to the idea of humping something and it pretending like I’m not there, I really don’t understand why people can’t be more like people where people are concerned, the way they are where animals are concerned. Yeah. Read it again. It makes sense. Because, when a dog or cat is horny, we do everything we can, we scour the earth, we call friends, we put ads in the paper, we do every-fucking-thing we can think of to get the horny bastard laid! But if a guys is humping a table at the bar, he gets thrown out. It’s absurd, really. What we should do to a fucker like that is the same thing we do to dogs that won’t stop humping: cut their balls off.
That’s all I got for now.
What the fuck? Seriously? Do you ever just take a second and look around at the world around you? No, this isn’t going to be a “starving pixies” monologue. You know, I’m not even sure what it’s gonna be, but It’s pissing me off already. So is almost everything else. Like animals. Animals piss me off, because everywhere they go, there’s drama, eventually. Yeah, they start off all cute and cuddly and you just can’t keep yourself from picking them up and loving on them, but you know deep inside that what started out as friendship is going to end in tragedy.
Any number of things could and will go wrong: 1) pissing in the floor, 2) chewing on shit, 3) scratching furniture, 4) making noise for no reason whatsoever, 5) taking over your bed, 6) demanding attention from your friends… all the sudden it’s not “Hey, Tom! What’s up?”… it’s “OMG, what a cute fucking puppy!”, which is, in some ways beneficial (like having a baby), because the hot chicks at the JC Penny think your just tits, but is mostly, really, just a hassle most days (I like babies, by the way) and you honestly can’t remember why you thought the little bastard was so cute to begin with, why you got it, and what the fuck you’re gonna do with it now.
If that doesn’t happen, i promise you that you will eventually get scratched, bit, humped, jumped on, growled at, or puked on at some point. And that, by itself wouldn’t be too bad, but it’s never by itself, is it? No. it’s always in conjunction with one of the afore mentioned negative aspects (yes, I said “afore” – fuck off), which only magnifies the trauma associated with being humped by a four-legged animal that, like people, just wants to rub it’s private parts all over something.
And that pisses me off, too, because when a dog does it, it’s annoying, but everyone just either pretends it isn’t happening or they excuse it away, like “oh, he’s just in heat”. And, while I’m used to the idea of humping something and it pretending like I’m not there, I really don’t understand why people can’t be more like people where people are concerned, the way they are where animals are concerned. Yeah. Read it again. It makes sense. Because, when a dog or cat is horny, we do everything we can, we scour the earth, we call friends, we put ads in the paper, we do every-fucking-thing we can think of to get the horny bastard laid! But if a guys is humping a table at the bar, he gets thrown out. It’s absurd, really. What we should do to a fucker like that is the same thing we do to dogs that won’t stop humping: cut their balls off.
That’s all I got for now.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
just be (pure dwarven bullshit)
there are times, probably more often than not and most likely more frequent than we would like, when the act of "being" is doable.
being is dependent on the moment one is in and nothing more, assuming and embracing that each moment, as small as one can fathom, is all that there is, was, or ever will be. for most, a moment may be, in "real time", as little as several seconds - though a few may experience it constricted even tighter than that.
any attempt to force a moment into something smaller than what it is (for the individual) would surely be based on some desire to "win at being" (which only brawndo can help you do) or "achieve superlative being" (which just sounds good). this motivation counter-acts being, for in being one seeks nothing beyond to be.
when you are considering the next thing you are going to do - when you are wondering how your current situation will effect your future - when you waiting for something, moving toward something, wanting something... these are times when you are not being.
the human condition constitutes that we will spend most moments only to get us to the next, perpetually racing forward to the same common end. do not attempt to escape this - any such attempt is not being. accepting this is also not being, but it is probably closer than the alternative.
instead, when a moment presents itself, accept it for what it is. a single moment. it is not dependent on the moment before and does not promise anything for the next moment. it simply is.
when the moment is "ising"... you can do being.
enjoy (but not too much).
being is dependent on the moment one is in and nothing more, assuming and embracing that each moment, as small as one can fathom, is all that there is, was, or ever will be. for most, a moment may be, in "real time", as little as several seconds - though a few may experience it constricted even tighter than that.
any attempt to force a moment into something smaller than what it is (for the individual) would surely be based on some desire to "win at being" (which only brawndo can help you do) or "achieve superlative being" (which just sounds good). this motivation counter-acts being, for in being one seeks nothing beyond to be.
when you are considering the next thing you are going to do - when you are wondering how your current situation will effect your future - when you waiting for something, moving toward something, wanting something... these are times when you are not being.
the human condition constitutes that we will spend most moments only to get us to the next, perpetually racing forward to the same common end. do not attempt to escape this - any such attempt is not being. accepting this is also not being, but it is probably closer than the alternative.
instead, when a moment presents itself, accept it for what it is. a single moment. it is not dependent on the moment before and does not promise anything for the next moment. it simply is.
when the moment is "ising"... you can do being.
enjoy (but not too much).
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Multiple Guess
Look, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but I'm smart enough to know at a glance that there are problems with multiple-choice tests. Perhaps these problems do not present themselves with all subject matters, but I believe they are prevalent enough to constitute a critical look at the concept of multiple-choice tests.
1) Choose the "best" answer.
Really? Best by whose standards? Are you asking me for my opinion? Where is the section where I can defend my choice? Do you want me to tell you what I think you would say is the best answer? What if you've never told me what you think is the best answer? If I honestly do my best to guess, haven't I fulfilled the standards given in the directions (choose the "best" answer)? If there is a "best" answer, who decides which one is the best? Have the deciders seen the same options you've given me?
Not only that, but the modifier "best" seems to indicate that all of the answers are possibly "good". It tells me that it's possible that every option is in some way correct, but more times than not I'm not given a standard by which to judge "bestness".
Now, if I'm counted wrong after choosing what I think is the best answer, where have I made a mistake? Was my answer completely incorrect or was it simply not the most correct (best) option? I will never know, because not only do multiple-choice tests assume that there is an objective "best" answer, but they also provide no mechanism to measure the intensity of the space between what is a "good" answer and the "best" answer.
2) Not enough options.
Multiple-Choice tests usually provide 4 to 6 options. Besides the fact that the test inherently assumes that there is one be-all, end-all "best" answer, it also suggests that the only existing possibilities are listed "A" through "D". But I've found myself looking at the available answers thinking, "What I would consider the 'best' answer is not on this list". So, how can I possibly choose the "best" answer when it is not even listed?
So, now I have a list of "possibly good, partially correct" answers from which I am supposed to choose the "best" even though it doesn't exist on the page. Wow. What a mess. At this point, I'm not even choosing, because my ability to choose has been limited by the constrictive and presumptive frame of the question and available answers. Not good.
3) Fake objectivity.
Multiple-choice tests pretend to be objective, supposing that they escape the pitfall of subjective judgment during the grading process. For this reason, they are looked at as superior to essay tests in some ways. However, I would argue that the subjectivity still exists, but to a qualitatively higher degree. You see, in multiple-choice tests, the subjectivity is front-loaded. It is build into the question, the answers, and the election of the "best" answer.
Though subjectivity exists in the same way on essay tests, it is made exponentially worse when it puts on the guise of objectivity. At lease with essay tests the subjectivity is out there on the table. At least with essay tests the participant is given the ability to generate what they believe to be the "best" answer and then defend it.
Taking this into account, essay tests are the only true multiple-choice tests. Why? Because they allow the participant to actually choose from however many options they are aware of. Further, essay tests are the only tests that allow for a true "best" answer because they ask the participant to choose and defend their choice as the "best".
4) Trickery.
Intentional or not, the fact is that many multiple-choice test questions are tricky. Some of the available options are so similar that it can cause the participant to simply guess out of frustration. You may argue that this is a good thing, but the matter is not whether teaching people to operate under stress is a good thing or not. The matter is whether or not the test is supposed to function as a stress test or as an accurate measure of knowledge. Usually, it is the latter, but still operates (without informed consent) as the former.
Also, many multiple-choice questions are poorly written. Specifically, on true/false questions, there is the matter of negative retention. A simple example:
Q: If birds were wingless, they would not fly.
Because this is a simple example, it is not difficult to see that the answer would be "True". The trouble is that "true" is a positive indicator being forced to retain a negative modifier. For some people, this can become very confusing. This problem is magnified when we bring gender identity into the equation. Many studies have been done to measure the differences between male/female and masculine/feminine multiple-choice format ability. In every published study, males/masculine perform as much as 11% better than females? This is because the format of the question requires the participant to think in a linear-logical pattern - an attribute more likely to be held by those on the masculine end of the gender scale.
5) Give the answer.
For a moment, let us forget all of the previous analysis about "best" answers and just pretend, for the sake of argument, that there is a "best" answer. Rather than require the participant to know what that "best" answer is, it is provided for them. Sure, they have to identify it in a group of "not-best" answers, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there for them. At worst, they have a 1/4 chance to "guess" it... but I suppose that's okay, since it's all a guessing game anyway.
The truth is that there is only one good reason to have multiple-choice tests: convenience. Teachers and professors either don't have time or don't want to take the time to read and grade short answer and essay tests. For professors, considering what their actual duties are to the university, it is more likely that they simply don't want to take the time to grade them. For public school teachers, bound by endless federal concerns, it so happens that simply don't have the ability to grade essay tests (or the students don't have the ability to write them).
The long and short of it is this: multiple-choice tests have a place in the education system, but it is most likely NOT at the university level. In a perfect world, children would be educated in public school, have their education reinforced at home, and be prepared for university life. In a perfect world, professors would be encouraged to focus more on education and less on getting grants for the university. But, alas, the beast disallows proper education at the public school level, professors are either lazy or distracted, and we are left with a world where we advocate a failed and flawed test-taking system.
Peace.
1) Choose the "best" answer.
Really? Best by whose standards? Are you asking me for my opinion? Where is the section where I can defend my choice? Do you want me to tell you what I think you would say is the best answer? What if you've never told me what you think is the best answer? If I honestly do my best to guess, haven't I fulfilled the standards given in the directions (choose the "best" answer)? If there is a "best" answer, who decides which one is the best? Have the deciders seen the same options you've given me?
Not only that, but the modifier "best" seems to indicate that all of the answers are possibly "good". It tells me that it's possible that every option is in some way correct, but more times than not I'm not given a standard by which to judge "bestness".
Now, if I'm counted wrong after choosing what I think is the best answer, where have I made a mistake? Was my answer completely incorrect or was it simply not the most correct (best) option? I will never know, because not only do multiple-choice tests assume that there is an objective "best" answer, but they also provide no mechanism to measure the intensity of the space between what is a "good" answer and the "best" answer.
2) Not enough options.
Multiple-Choice tests usually provide 4 to 6 options. Besides the fact that the test inherently assumes that there is one be-all, end-all "best" answer, it also suggests that the only existing possibilities are listed "A" through "D". But I've found myself looking at the available answers thinking, "What I would consider the 'best' answer is not on this list". So, how can I possibly choose the "best" answer when it is not even listed?
So, now I have a list of "possibly good, partially correct" answers from which I am supposed to choose the "best" even though it doesn't exist on the page. Wow. What a mess. At this point, I'm not even choosing, because my ability to choose has been limited by the constrictive and presumptive frame of the question and available answers. Not good.
3) Fake objectivity.
Multiple-choice tests pretend to be objective, supposing that they escape the pitfall of subjective judgment during the grading process. For this reason, they are looked at as superior to essay tests in some ways. However, I would argue that the subjectivity still exists, but to a qualitatively higher degree. You see, in multiple-choice tests, the subjectivity is front-loaded. It is build into the question, the answers, and the election of the "best" answer.
Though subjectivity exists in the same way on essay tests, it is made exponentially worse when it puts on the guise of objectivity. At lease with essay tests the subjectivity is out there on the table. At least with essay tests the participant is given the ability to generate what they believe to be the "best" answer and then defend it.
Taking this into account, essay tests are the only true multiple-choice tests. Why? Because they allow the participant to actually choose from however many options they are aware of. Further, essay tests are the only tests that allow for a true "best" answer because they ask the participant to choose and defend their choice as the "best".
4) Trickery.
Intentional or not, the fact is that many multiple-choice test questions are tricky. Some of the available options are so similar that it can cause the participant to simply guess out of frustration. You may argue that this is a good thing, but the matter is not whether teaching people to operate under stress is a good thing or not. The matter is whether or not the test is supposed to function as a stress test or as an accurate measure of knowledge. Usually, it is the latter, but still operates (without informed consent) as the former.
Also, many multiple-choice questions are poorly written. Specifically, on true/false questions, there is the matter of negative retention. A simple example:
Q: If birds were wingless, they would not fly.
Because this is a simple example, it is not difficult to see that the answer would be "True". The trouble is that "true" is a positive indicator being forced to retain a negative modifier. For some people, this can become very confusing. This problem is magnified when we bring gender identity into the equation. Many studies have been done to measure the differences between male/female and masculine/feminine multiple-choice format ability. In every published study, males/masculine perform as much as 11% better than females? This is because the format of the question requires the participant to think in a linear-logical pattern - an attribute more likely to be held by those on the masculine end of the gender scale.
5) Give the answer.
For a moment, let us forget all of the previous analysis about "best" answers and just pretend, for the sake of argument, that there is a "best" answer. Rather than require the participant to know what that "best" answer is, it is provided for them. Sure, they have to identify it in a group of "not-best" answers, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there for them. At worst, they have a 1/4 chance to "guess" it... but I suppose that's okay, since it's all a guessing game anyway.
The truth is that there is only one good reason to have multiple-choice tests: convenience. Teachers and professors either don't have time or don't want to take the time to read and grade short answer and essay tests. For professors, considering what their actual duties are to the university, it is more likely that they simply don't want to take the time to grade them. For public school teachers, bound by endless federal concerns, it so happens that simply don't have the ability to grade essay tests (or the students don't have the ability to write them).
The long and short of it is this: multiple-choice tests have a place in the education system, but it is most likely NOT at the university level. In a perfect world, children would be educated in public school, have their education reinforced at home, and be prepared for university life. In a perfect world, professors would be encouraged to focus more on education and less on getting grants for the university. But, alas, the beast disallows proper education at the public school level, professors are either lazy or distracted, and we are left with a world where we advocate a failed and flawed test-taking system.
Peace.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Moving Part 3 (it's never over)
Here's a fact of life: we are always moving. It doesn't matter if we empty out one building and fill up another, we are not done moving. Of course, we have to unpack and hang up pictures and put clothes in closets - but our marriage to moving goes much deeper than that.
Nearly 3/4 of the United Stated population moves at least once every 5 years. Most people consider moving at least 2 years before they actually do it. So, millions of people are either moving or thinking about moving at this very moment.
In the Bible, it says that if you think of something sinful, you have committed that sin.
Therefore, we are left with only 1 of 2 options:
(1) Just about everybody is either moving or thinking about moving and if they are thinking about moving, then they are moving - so we are always moving.
OR
(2) God is wrong.
If you chose option 2, you need Jesus. Peace.
Nearly 3/4 of the United Stated population moves at least once every 5 years. Most people consider moving at least 2 years before they actually do it. So, millions of people are either moving or thinking about moving at this very moment.
In the Bible, it says that if you think of something sinful, you have committed that sin.
Therefore, we are left with only 1 of 2 options:
(1) Just about everybody is either moving or thinking about moving and if they are thinking about moving, then they are moving - so we are always moving.
OR
(2) God is wrong.
If you chose option 2, you need Jesus. Peace.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Moving Part 2
If you haven't read part 1, good for you. It wasn't much of a read anyway - but neither will this be. But if you're bored off your ass, keep reading.
There are many theories on moving. I'll try to cover or invent three here. Why three? Well, why not? I mean, just about everything in the bible happens in threes... and if 3 is good enough for God, it's good enough for me.
Theory 1: "Fuck it, let's go."
This is a simple theory that is true to its name. In fact, its name comes from the exact phrase that is often uttered when a couple of guys have just finished strapping a 200 pound dresser to the top of a Gremlin, bottomed it out, and nearly flattened one of the tires. One will look at the other and with all the conviction he can muster, say, "Fuck it. Let's go."
This phrase is also often used by the disgruntled husband who has been subjected to the relentless commands of the "Be Careful With That" wife. We will discuss this theory in more depth after I've exhausted the current topic...
On second thought, "Fuck it. Let's go."
Theory 2: "Be Careful With That"
This theory is more than just a theory. It's also a phrase. A very, very, very, very annoying phrase. Really, did you think I was planning on NOT being careful with it? Do you think I've been sitting around all day plotting and planning and that I am now on the brink of executing my master plan to not be careful? Please. I've had better things to do. Between football and porn, I barely have time to text the girl next door, much less plan on breaking my own shit.
As a theory, "Be Careful With That" is less a method of moving and more a method, often unconscious, for control. Never will you hear the doers utter the phrase. Nay, this phrase only escapes the lips of the bystanders, the orchestrators, the bourgeois. Always remember, allowing them the luxury of this pseudo-control keeps them happy. It is always your right and choice to form an uprising, overthrow the power structures, or refuse to produce... should you so choose.
Theory 3: "I wore flip-flops"
This is a theory employed primarily by helpers or friends. Look, carrying a dresser or desk is bad enough in and of itself - but nobody wants to be the one to walk backwards. This is especially true when you're not even moving your own shit. So, my advice to you (that is, unless you are helping me move) is this: when you are imposed upon to help a "friend" move his shit, wear flip-flops.
You gain 2 intense advantages from this theory. (1) You avoid having to walk backwards, and (2) you subtly punish the imposer for having imposed. You've probably done this subconsciously in the past, but now that you are aware of it, you can apply the theory knowingly and you will get so much more out if the experience.
There you have it. Part 2. Yes it was brief and dim, but at least it was brief.
There are many theories on moving. I'll try to cover or invent three here. Why three? Well, why not? I mean, just about everything in the bible happens in threes... and if 3 is good enough for God, it's good enough for me.
Theory 1: "Fuck it, let's go."
This is a simple theory that is true to its name. In fact, its name comes from the exact phrase that is often uttered when a couple of guys have just finished strapping a 200 pound dresser to the top of a Gremlin, bottomed it out, and nearly flattened one of the tires. One will look at the other and with all the conviction he can muster, say, "Fuck it. Let's go."
This phrase is also often used by the disgruntled husband who has been subjected to the relentless commands of the "Be Careful With That" wife. We will discuss this theory in more depth after I've exhausted the current topic...
On second thought, "Fuck it. Let's go."
Theory 2: "Be Careful With That"
This theory is more than just a theory. It's also a phrase. A very, very, very, very annoying phrase. Really, did you think I was planning on NOT being careful with it? Do you think I've been sitting around all day plotting and planning and that I am now on the brink of executing my master plan to not be careful? Please. I've had better things to do. Between football and porn, I barely have time to text the girl next door, much less plan on breaking my own shit.
As a theory, "Be Careful With That" is less a method of moving and more a method, often unconscious, for control. Never will you hear the doers utter the phrase. Nay, this phrase only escapes the lips of the bystanders, the orchestrators, the bourgeois. Always remember, allowing them the luxury of this pseudo-control keeps them happy. It is always your right and choice to form an uprising, overthrow the power structures, or refuse to produce... should you so choose.
Theory 3: "I wore flip-flops"
This is a theory employed primarily by helpers or friends. Look, carrying a dresser or desk is bad enough in and of itself - but nobody wants to be the one to walk backwards. This is especially true when you're not even moving your own shit. So, my advice to you (that is, unless you are helping me move) is this: when you are imposed upon to help a "friend" move his shit, wear flip-flops.
You gain 2 intense advantages from this theory. (1) You avoid having to walk backwards, and (2) you subtly punish the imposer for having imposed. You've probably done this subconsciously in the past, but now that you are aware of it, you can apply the theory knowingly and you will get so much more out if the experience.
There you have it. Part 2. Yes it was brief and dim, but at least it was brief.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Moving
if you ask me, the act of moving is one of the most frustrating ventures any household can set themselves to. though people have been doing it for ages, we've yet to discover the proper way to do it. maybe by expressing myself here, I will somehow make next week's move more bearable.
this will be a 3-part mini-series on moving. I'll begin with some of the more frustrating aspects of moving. later, I'll go into some theories of moving Then, I will conclude with whatever I'm thinking when I get to the conclusion.
1) BOXES: roughly put, boxes piss me off. I hate the shape, I hate the smell, I hate the color, I hate the feeling of a dry cardboard box against my skin. really, how could somebody manage to combine so many unattractive and useless qualities together into one product. the only thing product that seems more a mistake than boxes is the Ford Pinto - and the only reason it's worse that the cardboard box is because cardboard boxes don't explode when you bump them. at least they have that going for them.
2) DUST: look, we usually keep a relatively clean house, but one can't clean every corner every day, you know? so I'm here picking up old books off the shelf and moving furniture around and stirring up dust like Bob Marley. what's worse is that the dust morphs from benign to malignant in seconds. one moment it's just sitting there in the corner not bothering anybody and the next, it's flying up, up, up into the air and diving back down like a Japanese Kamikaze pilot coked out of his mind. speaking of that, why didn't we just line our ships with cardboard boxes as a deterrent?
3) SWEAT: look, there are very few good reasons to sweat and moving my shit from one place to another is not one of them. sex is a good reason, but not moving. in fact, if during the act of sex I can somehow manage to NOT move OR sweat, it's heaven. but as much as I hate moving, I'll do it if it means I get to have sex. hell, I'd even go for sweaty sex in a dusty cardboard box...
that's all I got for now. peace.
this will be a 3-part mini-series on moving. I'll begin with some of the more frustrating aspects of moving. later, I'll go into some theories of moving Then, I will conclude with whatever I'm thinking when I get to the conclusion.
1) BOXES: roughly put, boxes piss me off. I hate the shape, I hate the smell, I hate the color, I hate the feeling of a dry cardboard box against my skin. really, how could somebody manage to combine so many unattractive and useless qualities together into one product. the only thing product that seems more a mistake than boxes is the Ford Pinto - and the only reason it's worse that the cardboard box is because cardboard boxes don't explode when you bump them. at least they have that going for them.
2) DUST: look, we usually keep a relatively clean house, but one can't clean every corner every day, you know? so I'm here picking up old books off the shelf and moving furniture around and stirring up dust like Bob Marley. what's worse is that the dust morphs from benign to malignant in seconds. one moment it's just sitting there in the corner not bothering anybody and the next, it's flying up, up, up into the air and diving back down like a Japanese Kamikaze pilot coked out of his mind. speaking of that, why didn't we just line our ships with cardboard boxes as a deterrent?
3) SWEAT: look, there are very few good reasons to sweat and moving my shit from one place to another is not one of them. sex is a good reason, but not moving. in fact, if during the act of sex I can somehow manage to NOT move OR sweat, it's heaven. but as much as I hate moving, I'll do it if it means I get to have sex. hell, I'd even go for sweaty sex in a dusty cardboard box...
that's all I got for now. peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
