Aaron's Randomocity

Blog Moved

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:58:00 +0000

This blog has (more or less) moved to a new location: http://randomocity.aaronturpen.com/

I didn't import any of the stuff here, since I've kind of changed the tone and focus of the whole thing. Go check it out. My focus now is on one-liners and short (sub 50 words) thoughts on life and manlosophy.

Why You Shouldn't Work for Women Doing Creatives

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:12:00 +0000

I had to get this off my chest. I refuse to work for women when doing any writing or creative work. I think most of you who are in Web design/development, writing, etc. will agree with me on this once you get past the "this guy is totally sexist" autonomic response you're conditioned to have.

Here's why I no longer accept or do project for women: they only tell you 1/3 (or less) of the parameters and then require three times the re-writes as their male counterparts.

Back when I was doing Web development, I ran into this constantly. Female clients would give me vague ideas about what they wanted things to look like and how they wanted them to function. Then I would work with that, my perception at the time being that I had a pretty good idea of what they wanted. I'd show the results to the client and the nit-picking would begin. A simple project that I had bid on assuming it would take about 15-20 hours of work suddenly turns into a 3 week back-and-forth and re-do.

Today? Same thing.

I recently took a contract with someone I thought was male (screen names can be hard to quantify). Since it was so small, I didn't bother asking for a deposit (so no PayPal real name to go with). Turns out, it's a woman. Now, after having turned in the goods, she's basically asking me to start over and do it all again because I didn't follow some hidden guideline she never mentioned, but "should have been obvious" (according to her).

This means the project is going to take twice as long as before. So, I have to ask myself, is the $100 worth it?

You tell me. Luckily, the stuff I wrote for her can probably be turned over to Ezinearticles.com or one of those places as lame marketing materials, though that has dubious value for me.

Basically, I wasted three hours of my time on this lady's bullshit and now she wants me to do it all over again. Screw that.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

An Anatomical Analysis of Morphic Genetics in Humans

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:32:00 +0000

Background and Purpose
The genome of homo sapiens (humans) is quite varied within the species itself, with variations of height, weight, muscle tone, bone structure, and so forth being widely distributed amongst the population as a whole. The genus has several variants originating in geographical placement, but currently having little purpose as the population mix spreads planet-wide.

Procedure and Method
Variations are almost entirely genetic in nature with parents playing a key role in the makeup of offspring, as with most mammalian species. The following is an analysis of one such pairing and the resulting offspring. The parents are the father (Aaron) and the mother (Kathy) whose offspring is a human female (Heidi).

Data

In Figure 1, above, we see the subject (the offspring, Heidi). The following points are observed about the human infant:

1) Hair color very similar to father's
2) Ear shaping much like the mother's
3) Eyes and eyebrows of the father's type (see also Fig2)
4) Nose of shape and proportional size similar to father's
5) Mouth with characteristics much like the mother's

In this second illustration, we see more facial morphisms also comparable to the parent's features:

6) As above in #4, eyes and eyebrows very much like the father's
7) Skin tone and complexion almost exactly matching the father's
8) Chin and mouth, as in #5, very comparable to the mother's
9) Hands and fingers which appear to be an inconclusive mix of father and mother

Conclusion
As illustrated herein, it is very obvious that this child was a mixture of the two adults who paired genes to create her. The mixture and complexity of the genes in question is astonishing in number, with the human haploid genome comprising of just over 3 billion base pairs, with the actual total depending upon sex.

Given the near-infinite number of sequences that could be paired, the fact that they consistently, as illustrated here, come together to show the parental influence is astonishing. Some would say it could speak of a higher power at work, while others would claim it's all about statistics.

That supposition is beyond the scope of this study, but may warrant further study in future.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

How to Get Sued

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:10:00 +0000

Want to be sued or get multiple threats of lawsuits? It's easy! Just operate a non-profit organization and their website. That's all that's required!

Yep, you too can be sued by anyone and everyone for whatever you're doing to help in a charitable fashion. If they don't like what you've posted on your site, they'll threaten to sue. If they don't like how you named them (for what they are) on your site, they'll sue. If you ask to take money to help you with something regarding your charity and they see it as a solicitation (even though all you did was post it on your site)... yep, they'll sue!

In short, if you want to be sued, just organize a 501(3)(c) and, if you can get through the IRS' hurdles to become a non-profit charity, you too can be sued by everyone else who thinks you're worthy of lawsuit!

Why? Because nobody likes charity that isn't government-enforced theft. You know, like the IRS or the publik skewl. If you're a private charity, you're fair game. Don't worry about what their reasoning might be, they'll come up with one.

As you all know, I'm part of a local animal rescue group and today, we received no less than two threats of lawsuit from two seaprate entities over two different things on our website. I'm not going to point to specifics or even our site itself, just to say that:

1) the first threat is from an obviously mentally-deranged woman who needs some serious help and a JOB.

2) the other threat is because someone didn't like us calling them what they are and made a deal with a third party involved in the whole shebang that we weren't informed of.

So the first was responded to by yours truly with an "FU lady" and the second was responded to with a removal of the "offense" from our website.

Now, of course, someone apparently called the IRS to attempt to threaten our charitable status and they gave us a friendly phone call to ask us to change some wording on one page that might be construed as "political in nature."

Probably where I said complying with IRS rules is a PIA. So I'll fix that now, after I finish ranting here.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Supermarket Sex

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:07:00 +0000

This one is from Derek's Vandalism of Words, a blog which I find quite entertaining.

Supermarket Sex
I have this terrific marketing concept for supermarkets. One I have worked over in my head for months, and can now say assuredly that it is a guaranteed winner and sure to increase both turnover and profit.

The first notion of this idea came to me as I was in a supermarket going about my normal routine. That is, have a list, go directly to the items, gather them as quickly as possible and go directly to the checkout, pay and then leave. Other men were also shopping in this supermarket, with similar methods of attacking this dreaded chore. It was noticeable however, and I had made this observation many times, that women have a totally different approach to the same task.

They begin with selecting just the right trolley. Not just any one. But the one that will give them the ride, suspension and forward momentum they desire. They begin methodically at the first aisle, which is never the freezer or refrigerated aisle as they leave these until last so as to minimise thawing. They have a list but only refer to this for inspiration. Every item on the shelves comes under consideration. Picked up, labels read, compared, thought about and in most cases replaced on the shelf unpurchased. For a woman it is also mandatory, and I am sure great fun indeed to leave their trolley in a position to create maximum aisle blockage, and wander off in search of the perfect bottle of hair conditioner. If a man, on his direct and fast as possible approach is caught touching her trolley in an attempt to progress, she scowls at him and will ensure she does it again to him in the next aisle out of sheer spite.

After a few hours of ‘feeling, touching, reading and comparing’ ladies make their way to the checkout. Always, with split second timing, just ahead of a man in a hurry. She will unload her trolley with the utmost care and planning in precisely the right order as to ensure her precious goods end up in the opposite order in her shopping bags. After unloading her trolley completely and checking every price as it is scanned, she will then look at her list and excuse herself while she ‘pops’ off to collect a couple of items she missed. There are some that now announce that they have bought more than they had budgeted for and start a process of deciding which items can be un-scanned and removed from the total.

The man behind her stands patiently with a forced smile, and wishes someone had a better idea. Well, I have it.

All, and I make no exceptions here, all checkout operators should be young, intelligent and attractive women aged between seventeen and twenty five. And be suitably equipped to conduct their scanning and packing duties completely and utterly topless. Cashiers for express lanes for 8 items or less should be similarly qualified but work entirely nude.

You may laugh now, but as my rationale behind this marketing plan unfolds I am sure you will see the commercial advantages.

Firstly men will want to go shopping. Men will desperately want to go shopping. Women will be less enthusiastic, and eventually be so outnumbered they will start to believe it a male domain and desist. The saleable goods of the supermarket will of course move from shelf to sale much quicker under this scheme. Men will quickly select their goods and proceed to the checkouts as quickly as possible. Although each individual sale will be smaller in volume, sales will actually increase as men will make their purchase, drop it in his car and then return for the second bagful.

Less checkout staff will be required because now their will be no complaint about waiting in a long line to be served. As long as each male shopper can see a nubile pair of breasts he will happily wait all day to be served. As an added benefit, a great saving will be made on the very expensive capital outlay and maintenance costs of shopping trolleys as they will be little used and eventually could be phased out of operation, as men will be very happy to shop just for the few things needed, and return the next day for what they couldn’t carry in a hand held basket. The attraction of all nude express lanes will add to the incentive not to use shopping trolleys with a potential saving of thousands upon thousands of dollars.

Special promotions could be planned but I will leave this part of my plan under wraps, as I believe I could be doing myself out of a handsome consultancy fee if I freely part will all the information necessary to implementing this brilliant retail strategy.

An excerpt from An Uneducated View of Sex, Food and Politics.
by Derek Haines
ISBN-10: 1449509347

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Awesome Video - Stopmotion Building a Motorcycle

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:05:00 +0000

It wasn't good enough for them to build a motorcycle in their garage. No, they had to do it with a stop-motion video showing the parts assembling themselves. Pretty awesome.

HT: Wired Autopia

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:06:00 +0000

Happy Thanksgiving!

Walmart Says You Can RIP for Less!

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:52:00 +0000

Funerals cost a lot. Caskets cost a lot. Dying costs almost as much as getting born. Some people mortgage houses, spend all of the life insurance cash, and more just to bury someone. The the cold reality of the $700 Social Security "funeral" benefit shows up.

Well, lucky for us, it's Wal-Mart to the rescue! The nation's low price leader has announced that they're now carrying coffins. Yep, watch your head, those falling prices could land you in one of these caskets.

Caskets start at $12.88 and go up from there. Oh, wait, that's an album by some band called Casket Salesman. OK, so prices start at $895 and go up from there.

Check it out.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

The Religion Flowchart: Choosing the Best Religion For You

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:15:00 +0000

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Febreze and Bachelorhood

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

A note for my bachelor friends:

Febreze is NOT a replacement for showering and/or laundry. You can't hose your clothing (or self) down with it and expect to be good for a couple of extra days. Sorry to break it to you.

Also, those commercials lie.

You can't spray down your pad with it and instantly have a clean place. Febreze does not take the used underwear off the ceiling fan, remove the week-old bread crumbs from the sofa, nor does it magically remove the odor from when you got drunk and missed the toilet.

Dads: please don't spray down your toddler with it hoping to eliminate the interesting smells they emit. That doesn't work either.

Also note: it does not work on dogs. Lame, I know, but it's the truth.

In fact, so far I've found no actual use for Febreze. I'm not even sure what it's really for, since the commercials are obviously showing totally unrealistic scenarios wherein it's being deployed.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

The Three Rules of Dating, Realtionships and Life

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:18:00 +0000

Alright. I've managed, through a long career in various job descriptions, to specialize almost entirely in taking complex things and boiling them down to their basics. I've done this with politics, global warming, religion, and now I'm going to do it with dating.

This information, of course, applies whether your relationship is a man-woman, woman-man, man-man, woman-woman, man-woman-goat, or any combination thereof. Sorry, it does not include donkeys. You sick pervert.

What I am analyzing here is the way that people walk into dating and the resulting relationships as if there's some huge mystique involved. Magazines like Cosmopolitan and Esquire have made whole fortunes from this false mystery and the promotion of it. I'm about to shatter their marketing strategy.

1 - Dating, at its essence.
Lots of discussion is given to "dating" and how this "complex relationship" of courtship is pursued by those involved (and often their mothers). Whole doctoral thesis and sections of religious texts are concerned with the act of courtship (dating) and its activities.

In my usual fashion, I will boil down the act of dating into one simple word that explains everything happening, no matter what it is.

SEX

Yes, folks. Pretty it up all you want, dating is just about sex. Do you dress up for your date, try on a half dozen colognes, spend an hour doing your hair, and use various mirrors and lighting tricks to attempt to pluck every stray hair just to "look good?" No, you do it so you'll look sexy.

We don't ask each other out, go to the best places, eat food we can't pronounce, and act like civilized people just so that we can "have fun." We do it so we can have fun by getting laid.

I don't care what religious phrases, moral overtones, multi-syllable psychiatric terms, or whatever else you try to use to explain dating. They're just really complicated ways to say "sex."

Dating is for sex. Those who don't believe that are lying to themselves. They're probably feminists, Methodists, sexists or some other "ists" to boot.

2. Marriage is for one thing.
All the various human relationships we create for our intimate lives, such as marriage, couple-hood, and all that, are for procreation. (That's a big word for sex.)

We don't get married in order that God will recognize us as a couple who will live together forever, or until "death do us part," or whatever. We get married so that we have a legally-binding contract we can enforce when the jerk tries to dump us when we tell him we're pregnant. Or so that we can keep all our stuff when the witch trots off with our best friend.

No matter the situation, marriage is about sex. More specifically, it's about sex exclusivity and the children that result. Whether your marriage is about two people or ten people or even five people and a yak, it's about exclusive sexual rights.

Everything else in marriage is just dating, but with fewer manners.

3. Old people have sex.
I threw this one in there to make sure you were still paying attention. Make sure to flush after you've finished puking and then keep reading. I promise I'm done grossing you out.

The point of this section's title (don't re-read it, you idiot! Alright, let me know when you get back... geez, throwing up sure does sound sickening) ... oh, right, the point of this section is to get you to note something: no matter how old you get, you're still thinking about sex.

(Damn, how much did you eat, anyway? Is there supposed to be green stuff in there?)

Alright, I'll just finish this off then. Everything in your life is basically about sex. From the time you become sexually aware (scientists are out on this one, but I'm guessing it's about the time people start using the word "teen" to describe you) to the time you die, everything in your life is about sex.

Before that time, everything in your life is about making adults feel awkward about sex. Yep, you may not have realized it, but children exist for one reason (other than growing up to become adults): making your sex life suck.

So, when you really boil it down, Freud was right. From the moment we're conceived (and the thirty seconds before that point, probably), our lives are all about sex.

Conception = sex
Birth = disruption of sex
Childhood = disruption and embarrassment about sex
Teenager = nothing but sexual thought
Adult = pursuit of sex
Death = completing the circle by making room for the people showing up because of conception.

There you go. If you were hoping for deep enlightenment from this, I hope you were satisfied. I know, I know. Don't praise me for my depth of insight. Just send money.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:22:00 +0000

Received via email

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard
in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may
steal from it at night." So they created a night
watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job
without instruction?" So they created a planning department
and hired two people, one person to write the instructions,
and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman
is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality
Control department and hired two people. One to do the
studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get
paid?" So They created the following positions, a time
keeper, and a payroll officer, Then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of
these people?" So they created an administrative section
and hired three people, an Administrative Officer,
Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in
operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over
budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the
establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY....
during the Carter Administration?

Anybody ?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion
dollars in support of an agency...the reason for
which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977.
TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS"NECESSARY"DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?
HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Capital Nativity Scene

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:24:00 +0000

Via email: The US Supreme Court has decided that no Nativity Scene can be presented on the U.S. Capital this year. Interestingly, this is not for religious reasons.

Apparently, they cannot find Three Wise Men in the nation's capital, they're unable to locate a proper Virgin, and so far all they've located are more than enough asses to fill the stable.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Peace Prize

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:37:00 +0000

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Top Secret

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:27:00 +0000

Right now, I'm working on something so top secret that I can't even tell you. If I did tell you about it, I'd have to, like, make you promise not to tell anybody else. That's how secret this is, man. Totally cool, though. Wish I could tell you more, but I can't. It's secret. Remember? Right. I'll show you when I'm done and the coast is clear.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Website Power

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:34:00 +0000

I was gonna power my website entirely on wind generators, but since it's only windy in Wyoming here about 360 days of the year, I was concerned about that 5 days of down time. That's not good for business.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Good news, Wyoming! California is still stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:24:00 +0000

by the Cheyenne Green Living Examiner

Under a severe budget crunch, California has three big plans to save their wallets from extinction: cancelling their big-money solar plant plans in the Mojave Desert, holding a big State yard sale to sell off overflow equipment and stuff they no longer need and... raising the amount of renewable power they are requiring themselves to buy.

That last one might not be so bad, as the original plan was to raise the mandate for the amount of power California must have from renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) to 38% and to do so from in-state sources.

Then came the Governator. Wyoming can thank him for nixing that plan and implementing only the bad bits. Bad for California, that is. So far, California is the number one importer of Wyoming green power and it looks like they'll continue to be so, no matter how many windmills we throw out there and how much power we can produce to send to the Golden State.

Once again, good news for us. We get the jobs, they get the debt. Good trade.

Eventually those socialists out there are going to have to wake up and realize that their high-dollar experiment has run out of funding and come back to earth. Until then, I say we milk them for all they're worth. It's not like we pay for the wind here. Right?

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

The Gay Closet

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:51:00 +0000

I've always wondered if when a gay person changes to become straight, do they go back into the closet? What about bisexuals? Are they just sort of standing in the closet doorway like there's gonna be an earthquake or something?

Which brings to mind transgender and those who've undergone "the change." Do they go in, out, walk around the closet or what?

What if the closet door gets closed and locked? Is there no going back? Can you jimmy it? (Maybe that's the wrong term..)

This is extremely confusing stuff. Maybe if it made more sense, people would be more accepting of homosexuals.

Which makes me wonder how the closet feels about all this. It's sort of caught in the middle through no fault of its own.

If I were a closet, I'd just close my door, bolt it, and tell everyone to F off and find a new analogy.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

History of Government Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:57:00 +0000

My cousin sent me this via email and I wanted to publish it here.

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedExp and UPS services.

Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

This is Heroes' Day

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:07:00 +0000

I'm going to stick my neck out and say something that some might consider inappropriate for this day, the anniversary of 9/11/2001.

Today is not Patriot's Day.

We all know the history of 9/11 and what happened on this day in 2001. We also know why it is called Patriot's Day and why President George W. Bush and Congress thought it appropriate to name this day Patriot's Day.

They were wrong.

Today is not Patriot's Day and what happened on 9/11 was not a patriotic thing. What happened on that fateful day was the willful slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans who were going to work that day like they would any other day. Some worked in an office, some wore badges, some carried wrenches, but all were just men and women, regular people, going to work.

What happened on 9/11 was a massive group and individual showing of bravery by the men and women tasked with responding to emergencies such as what happened at the Twin Towers on that sad day in our history.

Those people were not Patriots, they were Heroes. Patriots are those who fight for their country, whether with words, deeds, or both. Heroes are those who put themselves at risk in order to save others whose lives are already at risk.

On 9/11/2001, Heroes ran to the rescue of those who were in peril.

On 9/11/2001, people who normally would consider a good game of racquetball or getting on the subway after 10pm to be a nerve-rending event were called, instead, to care for wounded and bloody co-workers, to carry the injured down smoky stairwells, or otherwise commit acts of bravery beyond what any worker in the Twin Towers ever imagined themselves being required to do. Heroes responded to an event that occurred without warning, heedless of the danger to themselves as they helped their fellow man.

Patriots, by contrast, amassed in Lexington Square on April 19 in 1775 and decided to tell their oppressors, once and for all, that they weren't going to stand for the tyranny any longer. Patriots, on that day, fought and died for their beliefs and their country.

The biggest difference between a Hero and a Patriot is the thought behind the actions taken. A Hero must decide in a split second whether they are to be a hero or a coward. A Patriot has time to consider the options and decide the best course of action to achieve the goals that will save his or her ideals.

Neither is better or worse than the other. Both require a strong inner resolve and a dedication to the welfare of others. Heroes are required to be reactionary, ready to respond right away and to not worry about putting their lives on the line to help others. Patriots are required to be strategists who put their lives on the line when it will cause the most harm to the enemy.

9/11 is Heroes Day. A day when true American Heroes showed that no matter how soft the world thinks we are, no matter how compliant the enemies of this country might believe us to be, there are always plenty of Americans who're willing to jump in to do what needs to be done. To do what's right.

Hopefully we can count on those Heroes amongst us today to also be Patriots. Because the time is coming when the job of Heroes will take a back seat and the role of the Patriot will need to be filled.

Today, we remember the Heroes. Take your hat off and pray for those Heroes who didn't make it. Tomorrow, I hope you'll then look to your flag, your rifle, and your resolve and remind yourself that our country needs Patriots now more than ever.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

5 Most Romatic Places to Propose

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:07:00 +0000

I was thinking about this, after reading a Tremendous News post this morning. I started thinking about my own marriage proposal and how it could have been.

I was honestly not all that romantic about it. I didn't swing for a fancy dinner, didn't buy expensive flowers, or any of that. In fact, I proposed at home while we were watching TV. I just kind of blurted it out. "Hey, we should get married." A couple of months later, we were in Vegas.

It worked out, I guess, but it wasn't all that romantic. Here's how it could have been, in my mind. It's all about real estate: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. So here's my list of the 5 most romantic places to propose marriage.

1. Denny's
How can you go wrong with Denny's? It's the all-American restaurant, always has the happiest and most service-oriented wait staff, and has a general atmosphere that just screams "ROMANCE." Even in the smoking section.

2. Facebook
How more romantic can you be about expressing your love and wanting to be with someone for time and all eternity (or next week, whichever is greater) than by broadcasting your intentions over your Facebook wall? And theirs, of course. Otherwise it's just kind of silly.

3. The Swap Meet
Back east, you Yanks will call these "flea markets." I guess you don't have Indians and horses and stuff there. Anyway, the swap meet is probably the most charming, expressive, memorable, and romantic outdoor location I can think of for an excellent marriage proposal opportunity. They're always clean, full of the nicest and most well-groomed people, and the bargains... Hoi!

4. The Zoo
Think about it. It's obvious. Most people love animals and the zoo is full of animals. What more romantic location that just screams "FAMILY ATMOSPHERE" could you pick than the zoo? I mean, it's full of animals in prison who're just ecstatic to be there and stuff. Plus the jungle sounds are sexy. Note: avoid the monkey cages when proposing. Nothing ends a marriage's future faster than chimp poop.

5. The Star Trek/Anime/RPG Convention
Bonus points if it's all of those rolled into one event. Nothing says "I'm a sexy bitch" more than one of these conventions. As a bonus, chances are you're the hottest couple in attendance too. To do it right, though, you've got to be in costume AND seize a microphone during a presentation to make the proposal in public and preferably in song (themed to the convention, of course). Note: this is not a direct jab at Nick and Rebecca.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

For Harold

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:56:00 +0000

A friend of mine, Harold Sensor, died this weekend and I just found out about it today.

Harold had crooked teeth and shaved his head, but he was a happy man, a fun guy, and a very good friend. He talked nice about people or didn't talk about them at all.

He always wanted to buy dinner, share a cigar, or otherwise shoot the bull.

Sometimes Harold was a little goofy, often he was maybe a little too smart, but never was he mean or vindictive and he was always there. He answered his phone when I called to complain and he laughed at my stupid jokes.

We shared mutual friends, contented heartburn after dinner, and usually we were glad to have run into one another.

With Harold, there was no reason to fight, no mean spirits to contend, and nothing too rude or obnoxious not meant as a joke.

I am glad to have known Harold Sensor and he is one of the characters who've storied my life that I won't easily forget or regret knowing.

So take a worthwhile rest, Harold, on a comfortable cloud. But not for long, knowing you, I'm sure you'll be back, somewhere, sometime.

I will watch for you.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

The Secret to Lasting Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:42:00 +0000

A lot of people have all kinds of advice on "lasting marriages." Dr. Phil and all those dillweeds have lots of things to tell you about what you should be doing to keep a good marriage going. Or repair a bad one.

Whatever, dude.

Here's my advice, which I can confidently give after ten years of real-world marriage experience and zero psychotherapy and psycho-babble classes on the subject:

Be stubborn.

That's it. Stubbornness saves marriages. I'm convinced.

Look, I'll explain.

I have red hair. I'm extremely stubborn. Bull headed, hard as a mule, dumb as an ox, whatever you want to call it. I. Do. Not. Budge. Easily.

Therefore, we've stayed together. I won't go away, I refuse to be convinced we should split up, and I rarely even consider the possibility that we aren't "right for each other."

None of that clap-trap about "communication" and "keeping it real" is involved here. Just the fact that I will not give up. That's it.

Sure, we yell once in a while. Get angry sometimes. Call each other names occasionally. We're civilized (mostly), though, so we don't beat on, throw stuff, or otherwise abuse each other. No midnight stabbings or drunken fisticuffs happens here. We do have a row once in a while.

I've got news for Dr. Phil: that's fucking normal. People who live together, sharing finances, food, problems, dysfunctional families, etc. will fight. Welcome to the real world.

The question is how do we fight and do we make up for it afterward?

See? I suppose some psychologist will quack about how fighting is a form of communication and whatever. Ya, sure, pal. Fine.

The point is the fighting doesn't end the relationship. Why? Because we're too friggin bullheaded to let that happen.

Some people might call that hard-headed stubbornness "love." That's as good a word as any.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

M&Ms

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:29:00 +0000

Which color of M&M is the one that will kill you? I forgot. Tell you what, I'll just eat all of these and we'll see what happens. I also heard that the good colors balance out and negate the bad effects of the bad color.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me

Painkiller

noreply@blogger.com (Aaron Turpen) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:04:00 +0000

This video is of Judas Priest playing the most killer song they've ever made. Painkiller

Not only do I wish I could play guitar like this, but I want Halford's jacket. Of course, at first glance I think I could beat him down and take it. But he's not only got tattoos on his head.. his HEAD.. but he's also a 4-octave wonder. Plus, he's probably got old man strength. I'd probably go down like a little wuss.

Oh well. I can still dream of cool jackets like this. I also like the one that he wears on the concert tour for Nostradamus. Too bad that title song sucks. It would be awesome if his lyrics didn't sound like some kind of lame-ass high school pep club chant. The music is almost as kickass as the music for this song is.

But I digress. Mostly I just wanted to talk about how I could kick Rob Halford's ass. Instead, I just made a jackass of myself since not only can't I beat him down, I can't even talk about their shit without sounding like some prep school critic.

Oh well. At least I found an excuse to post this really, really cool video.

--Read more coherent stuff from Aaron by visiting his main blog at Aaron's EnvironMental Corner - where the environment is looked at mentally. Or something like that. Or just Twitter: Tweet Me