Desultory Blog About Random Stuff

Election Season

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:08:00 +0000

The ultimate presidential showdown that I am hoping for is . . . drum roll please . . . Obama/Richardson vs. Giuliani/Huckabee! This combination is guaranteed to be the best political drama in recent history because of the ideological and generational differences that are involved here. Even the word “awesome” is a gross understatement for this potential match.

Here is my quick assessment of the viable candidates:

Democrats	Republicans
Clinton: First and foremost, Clinton is a bad actor. IF she gets the nomination and IF she wins the general election, the nation will remain as divided as ever.	Giuliani: Mr. Mayor of America eats terrorists for breakfast and is a fiscal conservative when it comes to government spending. Too bad he is not the “complete package” that the GOP wants because he does not appeal to the social conservatives. But fear not, a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket will remedy that.
Edwards: I suspect that Edwards does not really believe in what he is saying, but he is a very good trial lawyer and that makes him a very good actor. Nomination? Unlikely. The Dems don’t like recycled candidates.	Huckabee: An ordained Baptist minister? A folksy guitarist? The Biggest Loser? (Huckabee is famous for losing more than 100 pounds.) Or, God forbid, another “compassionate” conservative? Just who is Mike Huckabee anyway? His idea of abolishing the IRS is intriguing, but just like Edwards’s promises, it’s just a pipedream due to the never-ending congressional divide. Nomination? Possible, but unlikely. Why? Well . . . because Rush Limbaugh dislikes him. LoL
Obama: Obama is a dreamer and many independents identify with his hopeful and unifying tone, but he has ZERO national-security experience and that’s a big problem in the general election. However, an Obama/Richardson ticket can probably remedy this shortcoming. So, be afraid, GOP, be very afraid.	McCain: A respectable statesman. Unfortunately, there are 49 other states besides New Hampshire. Nomination? Unlikely.
Richardson: Richardson has a lot of experiences but lacks the charisma that a Commander-in-Chief should possess. Also, the Dems will never pick him as the party’s standard bearer because his Hispanic heritage is too divisive in the current political climate. Nevertheless, he will be a good VP candidate. Heck, just look at the man’s resume. I, for one, am very impressed.	Paul: Waging a consistent war against the federal establishment, Paul is the god of Libertarians everywhere. However, because the GOP is not what it used to be, his nomination is extremely unlikely. An independent run by Paul is possible, but doing so will guarantee the Dems’ victory in November. I don’t think Paul wants to be remembered as the Republican Ralph Nader.
	Romney: A terrible actor, worse than Clinton, Romney just cannot galvanize the social conservatives. The Dems will easily defeat him even if he gets the nomination. What else is left to say about this guy? . . . My point exactly.
	Thompson: This troll is even more unlikable than Clinton AND Romney COMBINED. Nomination? Not a chance!

Wild Card:

Bloomberg:

Bloomberg might run as an independent, but I suspect he is more intelligent than that, especially if Obama ends up getting the nomination from the Dems. Why would he want to be remembered as the guy who blocked the first African American President from being elected?

—DesultoryT

Hugo Chavez & Co.

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:42:00 +0000

For me, the worst sin in politics is hypocrisy. Today, Hugo Chavez and his ilk provided us with a shining example of how NOT to put the money where your mouth is.

So FUCK YOU Hugo, and good luck with your Hummer Revolution.

—DesultoryT

Yankees vs. Redsox (and the Republicans)

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:33:00 +0000

This is perhaps the best exchange during yesterday's CNN-YouTube debate:

The debate ended as it began, with Romney and Giuliani in a deeply personal dispute. This time, it was over the New York Yankees vs. the Boston Red Sox.

"When I was mayor of New York City, the Yankees won four world championships," Giuliani said. "Since I've left being mayor of New York City, the Yankees have won none."

Romney, who was off by one year — 87 instead of 86 — on the length of the Red Sox World Series drought, replied: "Like most Americans, we love our sports teams and hate the Yankees."

—DesultoryT

RON PAUL for President?

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:18:00 +0000

I am a moderate libertarian (such an oxymoron isn't it?) and I know that abolishing the IRS, although possible, certainly cannot be achieved with the stroke of a pen. But hey, perhaps Ron Paul really is the right person for the job?

To learn what Ron Paul is all about, go to Banana Strudel's blog and watch the video there.

—DesultoryT

Solution to Southern California's Traffic Problem

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:43:00 +0000

If I become the dictator of California, I will ban all SUVs and force people to carpool. Anyone who disobeys my mandatory carpool regulation will automatically lose her license, no questions asked, no second chances. If you refuse to carpool, I will make you take the bus. It's that simple.

To think of it, carpooling is only a part of the solution. To really address Southern California's traffic problem, a more radical approach is necessary. What about this? If I become the dictator of California, I will mount machine guns at the border to stop the flow of illegal immigration, end birthright citizenship, and ban all families from having more than 2 kids. That ought to do it!

Joking aside, traffic in the Southland is seriously out of control. I say that because it just took me 45 minutes to travel 5 miles. Five fucking miles! Perhaps it's time for me to move to a fly-over state so I can actually live a little instead of being stuck in the perpetual jam.

—DesultoryT

Keeping up with the Joneses

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:01:00 +0000

I had a discussion with a friend today and our topic was: keeping up with the Joneses. And even though both of us are modest when it comes to material possessions, we concluded that it is necessary—for white-collar professionals at least—to maintain a certain socioeconomic image in front of their colleagues and clients.

This conclusion is inevitable because people, whether consciously or subconsciously, judge others based on the things they own. While this shortcut only provides a rough picture of an individual’s worth, sometimes it is the only source of information available.

For example, when we run into a college student who drives a Toyota Corolla, most of us will not think twice about his means of transportation because Corolla is a common model amongst college students. However, if a person’s job is associated with high discretionary income, choosing the same model will reflect poorly on her professional image. Why? Because our culture expects a successful professional to drive an expensive car, and not following the norm immediately raises the suspicion of ineptness (i.e., the person is not very good at what she does and does not make the same kind of money that her peers make).

Of course, this line of reasoning does not just apply to cars. It applies to many other things we own. And because the “perception” of success is so important, professionals who are modest by nature must learn to flaunt their wealth in appropriate circumstances. Sure, you don’t want to be a show-off, but you don’t want to lose the confidence of your colleagues and clients, either. Put another way, you don’t have to like the game, but you better know its rules.

—DesultoryT

Bad Email Practices

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:55:00 +0000

In my mind, there are only two bad email practices. No, it's not clicking "send" without first pushing the spell-check button or failing to notice the silly grammar mistake. We are not writing treatises when we write emails, so these errors are generally tolerable, if not expected.

So what are the two bad email practices that I am talking about? The first one is sending emails that run longer than five to six lines. The second one is emailing a group of people using CCs when it's more appropriate to use BCCs.

Sending an email that goes on and on will simply annoy the recipient. Unless you are in a position of great power (i.e., you are the boss), expect your email to be deleted immediately without being read. Remember, nobody has the time or the will to plow through your masterpiece, no matter how brilliant it is.

Moving on to CCs vs. BCCs, I can't tell you how many times I have received emails which include a long list of CCs, and one of the recipients inadvertently used the "reply all" function for a response that's meant to be private. For example, a colleague of my recently CCed 16 people, and one of the recipients, not aware of the fact that he was responding to everyone, wrote only two words—"Fuck that!"—in his reply. Needless to say, both parties were greatly embarrassed by this incident.

I am sure everyone has his/her dos and don'ts when it comes to writing emails, but for me, sending long emails and using CCs when BCCs should be used are the cardinal sins. So next time, pick up the phone and call the intended recipient of your message if you can't explain what you want to say in a concise manner, and don't forget that CCs can ruin your day if the message should really be communicated through BCCs.

—DesultoryT

Talk Dirty to Me, Baby!

noreply@blogger.com (DesultoryT) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:12:00 +0000

Better than chocolate, the aphrodisiac property of the phrase “talk dirty to me” is well known. However, it’s often the men who first utter these words in bed. The reason for this one-sidedness is simple—members of the fairer sex do not want to be perceived as promiscuous. In other words, women rather let men initiate the dirty-talking to avoid the risk of misconception.

But once in a while, a guy might meet a girl who is secured enough to use the line first. While most men who are matured enough would appreciate this kind of direct approach, they might not know how to proceed and talk dirty!

I think there are two main reasons for this inability: (1) taking dirty can sound silly sometimes, and men don’t want to be embarrassed* by saying silly things, and/or (2) men do not want to offend women, and they don’t know where to draw the line.

Frankly, like wine tasting, talking dirty is an acquired knowledge. And even though the vast majority of men enjoy watching porn, it is not a very good source for such knowledge. Let’s be real, copying the contrived lines right out of a video is an awkward exercise. Once men are no longer spectators of somebody else’s performance and have to actually talk dirty themselves, the sense of detachment, which is what makes porn so enjoyable, is simply gone.

With that said, it’s essential for any woman who wants her man to talk dirty to (a) guide him to say the things that she wants hear, and (b) not make fun or criticize him for any mistakes made during the learning process. Trust me, while men can be slow at times, they can still be taught. The more encouragement and guidance they receive, the faster they learn the art of pleasing women.

Now I will move on to the second reason of some men’s inability to talk dirty.

Extreme examples aside, most men are socialized into believing that they should be respectful towards women (yes, even in bed). So once in a while, when a lucky guy runs into a gal who wants him to talk dirty, he might hesitate because he does not know where to draw the line. In other words, he is afraid that he will inadvertently say something that the woman finds offensive.

Of course, guidance from the woman involved is a very good solution to this obstacle—she could simply tell him where the boundary lies. But I think an even better approach is for her to say that there is no boundary. Why? Because setting boundary takes away half the fun of talking dirty. If a guy constantly has to focus on what not to say, what’s sexy and enjoyable might become a burden instead. So, like the “What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas” tagline, if the guy remains respectful outside the bedroom, then there really is no reason to impose an artificial limit here.

—DesultoryT

* I realize that women might feel even more uncomfortable when men ask them to talk dirty. This valid point, however, is beyond the scope of this entry.