Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
A bug.
We're in the season when kazillions of miller moths migrating from the Great Plains to the Rockies fly over our house, with a great number of them mistaking our house for a Motel Moth 6. A couple of days ago we spotted the creature below on our front deck. I don't know what it is. Maybe the Queen of Miller Moths?
Monday, April 23, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Lotto lunacy.
Spending a dollar on a lottery ticket doesn't have to be a waste of money. If you get a little bit of excitement from it, maybe it was the best use for that dollar. But why do people get more excited when the prize gets bigger? In what way would winning $640M be better than winning, say, $10M, or even $1M?
The odds of winning the Mega Millions lottery are 1 in 176 million, so I suppose someone might say that it makes sense to play anytime the pot exceeds $176M. That's an interesting thought. If you had the money and bought 176 million tickets you'd have a pretty good chance to win, but that would be far from certain. And if you had bought those tickets, you might have been one of the 3 winners in this lottery and won $213M and change, but since you were already a multi-millionaire you probably wouldn't be really excited about it.
My thinking is that the difference between winning $640M and $1 is that the big prize would be at least 640 times more likely to ruin your life. I'd much rather have 640 chances to win $1M than 1 chance to win $640M, but I wouldn't pay for them.
Lottery officials know that people jump up with their wallets open when the prizes get big, which is why the odds are so steep. But if they changed the game so the odds were about 1 in 1 million to win $1M, I think they'd make more money. Maybe not right away, but before long you'd hear about people in your city who won, or maybe even someone you know. Then even I might head down to the liquor store to buy a weekly ticket. Even though I'm not likely to win anything with a million to one odds, it would be more exciting than having a ridiculous chance to win a ridiculous amount.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Erotica.
My brain has been running in sand lately, which is bad for blogging. As consolation, here is the most erotic video I have ever seen:
Monday, March 19, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Amazon bombs.
No posts here in a while - Tax Season for Twila and Apathy Season for me. I have been planning a series of posts, but something popped up that interrupted my train of thought.
Everyone loves Amazon.com, including me. They're so convenient, especially with the free delivery thing. I don't even go to the store for rubber bands anymore, just order them on Amazon and two days later they appear, as if by magic. But Amazon has eroded my confidence in them. I learned that they sell products with warranties that will not be honored by the manufacturers and they do not inform customers of that.
I ordered on Amazon a vaporizer manufactured by a company called Vapir. It has a one year warranty. About 32 days after I bought the vaporizer something went wrong in the electronics. Naturally, that was two days past Amazon's return period, so I contacted Vapir to have the product repaired under the warranty. They told me that they do not honor warranties of any of their products sold on Amazon.
That relates to Amazon's merchants program, where other companies can sell through Amazon. Vapir told me that they cannot ascertain who is really selling the vaporizers and even if they might be used. Amazon has an "A to z Guarantee Protection" policy regarding their merchants program, which sounds inclusive. However, their only guarantee is that a product will arrive at your door intact. They specifically state that all warranty claims after 30 days must be submitted to the manufacturer.
Naturally I was somewhat annoyed that I had a defective $150 vaporizer with an invalid warranty. I appealed to Amazon and they relented with a "one-time only exception" of their return policy. Nevertheless, I told them in several emails that I was unhappy with their policy of not stating that a warranty might be void. They pretended to be concerned. I returned the vaporizer, but I didn't have the original packaging. As a result, Amazon deducted $25.60 from the refund amount.
That was enough for me. I wrote to Amazon and told them that their failure to alert customers about the warranties is unethical if not illegal, and that I intended to pursue the matter. Their response was only to say that they would refund the $25.60. Too little, too late.
Today I filed a complaint with the FTC. I also contacted the Washington Post (a favorite newspaper) to ask if they have an investigative reporter who might be interested in pursuing this. I haven't heard back from either entity, but that will happen. In the meantime, be careful what you buy from Amazon. They told me that the only way to learn if a warranty will be valid is to contact the manufacturer directly. How helpful is that?
Everyone loves Amazon.com, including me. They're so convenient, especially with the free delivery thing. I don't even go to the store for rubber bands anymore, just order them on Amazon and two days later they appear, as if by magic. But Amazon has eroded my confidence in them. I learned that they sell products with warranties that will not be honored by the manufacturers and they do not inform customers of that.
I ordered on Amazon a vaporizer manufactured by a company called Vapir. It has a one year warranty. About 32 days after I bought the vaporizer something went wrong in the electronics. Naturally, that was two days past Amazon's return period, so I contacted Vapir to have the product repaired under the warranty. They told me that they do not honor warranties of any of their products sold on Amazon.
That relates to Amazon's merchants program, where other companies can sell through Amazon. Vapir told me that they cannot ascertain who is really selling the vaporizers and even if they might be used. Amazon has an "A to z Guarantee Protection" policy regarding their merchants program, which sounds inclusive. However, their only guarantee is that a product will arrive at your door intact. They specifically state that all warranty claims after 30 days must be submitted to the manufacturer.
Naturally I was somewhat annoyed that I had a defective $150 vaporizer with an invalid warranty. I appealed to Amazon and they relented with a "one-time only exception" of their return policy. Nevertheless, I told them in several emails that I was unhappy with their policy of not stating that a warranty might be void. They pretended to be concerned. I returned the vaporizer, but I didn't have the original packaging. As a result, Amazon deducted $25.60 from the refund amount.
That was enough for me. I wrote to Amazon and told them that their failure to alert customers about the warranties is unethical if not illegal, and that I intended to pursue the matter. Their response was only to say that they would refund the $25.60. Too little, too late.
Today I filed a complaint with the FTC. I also contacted the Washington Post (a favorite newspaper) to ask if they have an investigative reporter who might be interested in pursuing this. I haven't heard back from either entity, but that will happen. In the meantime, be careful what you buy from Amazon. They told me that the only way to learn if a warranty will be valid is to contact the manufacturer directly. How helpful is that?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Long-lasting male friendship.
You might be wondering why I'm blogging about something that doesn't exist.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Odd Days: Preserving My Image
Who doesn't love an image that flatters. I remember when Dear Abby was catching a load of guff for using a picture that was 30 years old. But can you blame her? You find a good picture and you want to use it for a while...like the rest of your life.
Durf understands this urge in his wife. So he immortalized an image I have been using for a while. The result? Well...interesting.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Odd Days: USA Today rocks!
Durf is a political animal, as most of you know, and he's been doing his best to educate the masses. I just want to report that he has moved one step closer to achieving that goal by publishing a letter to the editor in...USA Today.
Why do we care about USA Today? Because...because...it is the US paper with the widest print circulation. Back in the days when I still watched my book sales numbers on Amazon (worse than watching water boil), I learned that *only* a mention in USA Today notched my sales in the upward direction.
By inference, I guess we should assume that the appearance of Durf's astute comments in USA Today will have the effect of enlightening some 1.8 million readers. Go Durf!
Oh, in case you are one of the few who doesn't read USA Today, here's what Durf had to say:
Why do we care about USA Today? Because...because...it is the US paper with the widest print circulation. Back in the days when I still watched my book sales numbers on Amazon (worse than watching water boil), I learned that *only* a mention in USA Today notched my sales in the upward direction.
By inference, I guess we should assume that the appearance of Durf's astute comments in USA Today will have the effect of enlightening some 1.8 million readers. Go Durf!
Oh, in case you are one of the few who doesn't read USA Today, here's what Durf had to say:
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Odd Days: The Perp Walk
As I was running this morning, I encountered two cars that had been pulled over by the police, presumably for speeding. In each case, I looked curiously at the driver as I ran by. Aware of my scrutiny, the first fellow played with his nose and looked down so as not to make eye contact. The second left his nose alone but looked all over the place -- the mountains, the road, the passenger seat -- everywhere but at me. I was thinking, "Wow, the perp walk is excruciating for these guys even though they don't know me from Adam's off-ox."
And that got me thinking. It seems there are three types of people: those who like to fly under the radar, those who can't bear to fly under the radar, and the oblivious (or perhaps impervious). My sister, the psychologist, calls them introverts, extroverts, and in-betweens.
We discussed those contrasting behaviors numerous times as she and I (one bald, the other buzzed) ventured to the grocery store, to the movies, to the OSU campus, or just to the front door to greet visitors. To hear her talk, it is almost unbearable for her to appear bald in public. She doesn't like to be conspicuous. It would be anathema to her to leave the house without her wig.
I on the other hand, frequently forgot about my buzz cut and consequently often left the house without a wig and occasionally without even a hat. I became aware that I looked different only when someone was overly nice to me or spoke to me slowly and quietly.
But if I ventured out with my sister in tow, I was more likely to remember my wig. I knew she worried that if I looked like a freak, she'd be a freak by association. And then the worst of the worst would happen. People would stare at her. Ah, but what she didn't realize was that I was doing her a huge favor. When we walked down the street together or went into the oncology waiting room, all the stares and sympathetic glances went directly to me and she became invisible!
And that got me thinking. It seems there are three types of people: those who like to fly under the radar, those who can't bear to fly under the radar, and the oblivious (or perhaps impervious). My sister, the psychologist, calls them introverts, extroverts, and in-betweens.
We discussed those contrasting behaviors numerous times as she and I (one bald, the other buzzed) ventured to the grocery store, to the movies, to the OSU campus, or just to the front door to greet visitors. To hear her talk, it is almost unbearable for her to appear bald in public. She doesn't like to be conspicuous. It would be anathema to her to leave the house without her wig.
I on the other hand, frequently forgot about my buzz cut and consequently often left the house without a wig and occasionally without even a hat. I became aware that I looked different only when someone was overly nice to me or spoke to me slowly and quietly.
But if I ventured out with my sister in tow, I was more likely to remember my wig. I knew she worried that if I looked like a freak, she'd be a freak by association. And then the worst of the worst would happen. People would stare at her. Ah, but what she didn't realize was that I was doing her a huge favor. When we walked down the street together or went into the oncology waiting room, all the stares and sympathetic glances went directly to me and she became invisible!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Odd Days: Tax Season & Child Porn
It's tax season, y'all! I realize that for most of you tax season starts on April 14, but for me, it starts a little earlier. I bring this up only because my erratic posting will undoubtedly continue to be somewhat erratic until the end of tax season.
That's not to say I don't have anything to post. In fact, this time of year I am bursting with pent-up blogs. They include hilarious stories of fiscal misdeeds, reports of behaviors that, well, astound and dumbfound me. I could even report on my own foolishness in answering a phone call knowing full well who it is and how long he will spend trying to convince me to claim his grandmother's poodle-training class as a medical expense.
But some things are just too hot for the airwaves, whether it's child pornography or tax policy. I mean, who doesn't have a strong opinion about most things? But is that opinion ready for prime time?
One experience I do *not* want to have in this lifetime is to answer the phone only to have a client demand an explanation for why I said (on my blog) that the world would be a better place without Rick Perry or Rick Santorum or George Bush or Clarence Thomas or the republican party. You see my problem?
That's not to say I don't have anything to post. In fact, this time of year I am bursting with pent-up blogs. They include hilarious stories of fiscal misdeeds, reports of behaviors that, well, astound and dumbfound me. I could even report on my own foolishness in answering a phone call knowing full well who it is and how long he will spend trying to convince me to claim his grandmother's poodle-training class as a medical expense.
But some things are just too hot for the airwaves, whether it's child pornography or tax policy. I mean, who doesn't have a strong opinion about most things? But is that opinion ready for prime time?
One experience I do *not* want to have in this lifetime is to answer the phone only to have a client demand an explanation for why I said (on my blog) that the world would be a better place without Rick Perry or Rick Santorum or George Bush or Clarence Thomas or the republican party. You see my problem?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Chuck Berry: child molester?
When I was a sophomore in college Chuck Berry performed at Houseparty Weekend. He sang in the indoor hockey rink and for a while my girlfriend and I were about 10 feet from him. She was on my shoulders and I was sloshing around in the 1/4" of beer that covered the floor. Everybody in the place was yelling and singing and going wild.
This is a favorite.
I heard that on the radio a couple of weeks ago and it got me thinking: Would that song be acceptable today? It's about an underage girl dressing sexily and attracting men. When I got the video on YouTube the first comment was, "There would be something creepy about a guy in his forties singing about "Sweet Little Sixteen" if the music didn't rock so much!"
People are certainly more sensitive these days than they were in the '60s, in the "bigger stick up their butts" sense. Janet Jackson exposed her nipple for 1.5 seconds on TV and it created a national crisis. Rick Santorum is a viable candidate for president, for Christ's sake! But what about Chuck and "Sweet Little Sixteen"?
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that protecting children is the #1 priority of every adult human. Nothing is more important. The question is what to protect them from.
It is reprehensible if someone uses a child to create pornography, so it clearly is right for that kind of child porn to be illegal. But what about child porn if no child was used, maybe an animation or a person of legal age playing a child?
There is an argument that pornography in general incites sex crime. However that issue has been examined by many reputable groups, including Richard Nixon's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (which was stacked with conservatives), and not one found a link between porn and sex crime. [Note: Ronald Reagan's Meese Commission also found porn to be benign, but the final report was doctored because of dissatisfaction with the actual findings.]
A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that simulated child porn is protected by the First Amendment. How do you feel about that? Where should the line be drawn?
This is a favorite.
I heard that on the radio a couple of weeks ago and it got me thinking: Would that song be acceptable today? It's about an underage girl dressing sexily and attracting men. When I got the video on YouTube the first comment was, "There would be something creepy about a guy in his forties singing about "Sweet Little Sixteen" if the music didn't rock so much!"
People are certainly more sensitive these days than they were in the '60s, in the "bigger stick up their butts" sense. Janet Jackson exposed her nipple for 1.5 seconds on TV and it created a national crisis. Rick Santorum is a viable candidate for president, for Christ's sake! But what about Chuck and "Sweet Little Sixteen"?
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that protecting children is the #1 priority of every adult human. Nothing is more important. The question is what to protect them from.
It is reprehensible if someone uses a child to create pornography, so it clearly is right for that kind of child porn to be illegal. But what about child porn if no child was used, maybe an animation or a person of legal age playing a child?
There is an argument that pornography in general incites sex crime. However that issue has been examined by many reputable groups, including Richard Nixon's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (which was stacked with conservatives), and not one found a link between porn and sex crime. [Note: Ronald Reagan's Meese Commission also found porn to be benign, but the final report was doctored because of dissatisfaction with the actual findings.]
A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that simulated child porn is protected by the First Amendment. How do you feel about that? Where should the line be drawn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)