I think we might need to declare the breakroom a conversation free zone.

Gal 1: Great haircut!

Gal 2: Thanks! You really like it?

Gal 1: Yeah! It really shows off your breasts.

I just can't imagine going up to a male coworker and saying "Hey, Tom - great haircut. It really makes your cock stand out."

Is it just me?

Posted by: Jim at 09:47 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

The results of the Drag Queen Cat Fight are in. Sorry it took so long. We had to wait for the Ohio returns to be validated. The winners, in traditional reverse loser order, are:

Second runner up (1 point)
There isn't one! It's a tie for first runner up!

First runner up (3 points)
Princess Red (aka Kenny) and Maxi Hemlock (aka Helen) with 4 votes each.

The most draggish of the drag queens (5 points)
ShyAnne Havenwood (aka Holly) with a runaway 12 votes!

Congratulations, Ladies!

Posted by: Jim at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Disclaimer: Vegans, vegetarians and lovers of cuddly animals should not read this entry, which has been courteously concealed in the extended entry. You've been warned.

(That disclaimer sort of makes the title to this post all menacing, doesn't it? Mwah hah hah hah!!) more...

Posted by: Jim at 12:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

We've got morning traffic reports. We've got web-based mapping services. Combine the two.

Introducing MyTraffic.com*! Pull up the site before you head out the door. It shows you the best route to work taking into consideration slow traffic flows, accidents, etc.

* This is not a real site. Yet.

Posted by: Jim at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Of a website, I mean. According to Organic HTML, that is. See?

(Click for big size)

Lovely Wife's site is elegant and tall, with stylish accents. Hmmm...that's a pretty accurate description.

(Click for big size)

And mine? Well, it's a bit short with a rather prominent phallic element. Damned accurate, this thing is.

(Click for big size)

(Hat tip to Tre, who'll be on my blogroll whenever I get around to updating it.)

Posted by: Jim at 09:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 2 kb.

RP is having some fun with taxes ( <-- note: very heavy sarcasm) and asked if there are any volunteers to re-write the Tax Code and Regs.

I am the man.

First, let me state that the ultimate goal would be to eliminate income taxes altogether. Yes, it would too work just fine. It worked wonderfully before the Constitution was ammended to make this government theft legal. Restricting the government's access to money and the carrot/stick of monetary levies and gifts keeps government small and efficient. We have a bloated monster precisely because the government has given itself the power to take as much as the public will bear.

Anywho...that's not going to happen without open rebellion so I've come up with a simple and effective tax system that will work, will be perfectly simple and will be fair to all.

10% of income over $20,000 is paid as income tax. As many people as want to may form a household and file together. A family of five would pay 10% of any collective income over $100,000. There are no other taxes on income and there are no other exemptions. There are no loopholes.

Oh, yeah - almost forgot. As a corollary to promote fiscal responsibility, any politician submitting or approving a deficit spending budget gets a toe cut off. See the comments in RP's post for a bit more in-depth look at the toe-ectomy issue.

Posted by: Jim at 08:49 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, that with every plan, the devil is in the details. The problem is defining income. Right now, gifts of money are not income (up to a certain point they are tax free and then a gift tax return is required). Proceeds from life insurance policies are not income. Money or property taken by inheiritance, not income. Would you eliminate all those exclusions from income? How about giving to charity? That is favored by the tax code by giving you deductions. I have to say I don't envy the job of the people making these decisions today.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 08:58 AM (LlPKh)

2 Forgot to say, thanks for the link, Jim! If anyone chooses to follow the link and come over, please remember that you may not look at any other post on my blog. You can't look at anything else. Nothing. Not one single other thing. And no smiling. Let's see how that works. It usually works great with the kids.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 09:01 AM (LlPKh)

3 We'll paraphrase Miriam-Webster here. Income is a gain measured in money that derives from capital or labor. Gifts are not income. Insurance payments and inheritance are not income. Work benefits are income as they are derived from labor. Gifts are not income as they do not. There would be no loopholes, no deductions at all ever except the $20,000 per human one.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 09:24 AM (tyQ8y)

4 Yeah, but I don't think it really makes sense to exclude gifts, for instance, from income. Income ought to be defined broadly as benefit (to capture money and property or anything in any form) accruing to you or to your beneficial ownership from any source. Then you avoid the scams as people try to move around the definition. I don't think income should only be defined as coming from labor or investment. Then you exclude intergenerational transfers of wealth by way of gift. It certainly spends like income from the point of view of the grantee and it feels like money from the point of view of the grantor.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:10 AM (LlPKh)

5 We're getting away from income tax there. We aren't trying to generate a profit tax. The reason the current tax code is such a convoluted and bloated mess is precisely because the government is using customized definitions of income in order to assess a profit tax.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 10:13 AM (tyQ8y)

6 I disagree. I think that the problem is that naturally any benefit you receive is really income and the problem has been distorting the definition to make all the exceptions. Once you start carving out exceptions, you get the massive mess we have. Simply define everything as income and then, among other things, I bet you can lower the rate to much, much lower that we ever conceived of being possible.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:55 AM (LlPKh)

7 Okay, we can do that. Scrap the income tax idea and institute a profit tax instead. Personal profit tax is as described above; 10% of all profits made over $20,00o.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 11:06 AM (tyQ8y)

8 I think that we could probably end up a lot lower than 10% if for no other reason than, by way of example, I understand that $3.5 trillion alone is paid in the form of corporate dividends each year.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 12:33 PM (LlPKh)

9 Maybe, but I doubt it. Most folks won't be paying anything at all. Since we moved to a profit model it's gains vs. losses. If I make a salary of $50,000 and spend $30,000 during the year (for a $20,000 profit) I owe no taxes. The folks who'd actually be paying are mostly investors and savers.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 01:18 PM (tyQ8y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Found at Why Television Sucks - A do it yourself bumpersticker maker. Ah, what fun!

Here's a nice topical one:

One we'd all love to use but wouldn't have the balls:

A venerable classic revisited:

And a couple dedicated to everybody's least favorite socialist:

See what you can come up with and trackback to this post (or direct me to your post in the comments here if you fear trackbacks). Best stickers will win some points next Wednesday.

Posted by: Jim at 08:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this over at LeeAnn's Cheesy Castle of Doom ^(TM). Ralex Whitlock (what sort of name is "Ralex" anyway?*) made a list of ten things that he thinks bloggers do wrong. A list of common failings, if you will. LeeAnn did a self-analysis against the list and, since I'm nothing if not a slave to rule number 1, I have too:

1. Only link to what we've already read and only say what we've already heard.

Nah. A goodly bit of my stuff is original and I don't go around parroting people via links.

2. False modesty.
False modesty? Moi? Hehe. Hahaha. Mwah hah hah hah hah!!
Um...no.

3. Clearing the archives.
Nope again. All of my tripe is out there for your enjoyment. Actually it would be a great benefit and increase usability quite a bit if bloggers (like me) cleaned out half of the garbage in their archives. more...

Posted by: Jim at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 706 words, total size 4 kb.

1 As for the site, the reason I put it there is because people were confused as to why the heck the site was called RAWbservations, so it makes my initials more clear. Though really I've been putting the "R." in front of my name pretty much by habit at this point. Any time I sign a check or credit card receipt I put it on there to explain the discrepency between the name I'm signing and the name I'm using. I used to sign one or the other depending on which name they needed, but that got tedious. Ultimate point being that unless I legally change my name, it's more difficult to get rid of the first name than the middle one.

Posted by: Ralex at February 17, 2005 01:05 PM (TS8P4)

2 I'm guilty of number 7 and number 10. I read certain blogs that appeal to me but there are a number of "top rated" blogs that I've only been to once and learnt it wasn't for me. I don't often comment in my own comments simply because I am either away from my pc, or I am not so posh that I think anyone cares about my comments. I get annoyed when you see bloggers comment in their site when they've obviously been away for a while and feel they must address each and every commenter like: Adrian-Thanks, buddy!!!!!!!!!!! Tonsilhockey-((((HUGS)))) Janine- You go girl! Whippetlover-ROTFL! PeteyTeenyTiny-I so agree!!!!!!!!! Yeah. That kind of thing. I hate that crap. If you have nothing to comment to the comment, then just don't.

Posted by: Helen at February 18, 2005 02:14 AM (9jsh4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The SuperSoaker flamethrower.

Don't be the last kid in your neighborhood to get one!

(Hat tip to Dopple-G)

Posted by: Jim at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Q: Why do the trees in Georgia lean to the West?

A: Because Alabama sucks.

* The trees all do lean to the West though.

Posted by: Jim at 10:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that's the only explanation I can come up with for why I don't shed pubes all over the men's room like seemingly every other male employee in this office.

The bathrooms are scrubbed squeaky clean every day so I know it isn't an accumulation problem. I know for damned sure that I am not dropping curlies when I drain the vein. So is there an epidemic of sporadic nether hair loss in the company? There must be because by the time lunchtime comes around the urinals are outfitted for blizzard conditions.

Am I unusual for not spreading around my love floss? Is it something odd that I'm doing? Maybe I should only scrub Captain Happy for five minutes instead of fifteen in the morning shower so as not to dislodge any tentative sprouts?

Is the follicular presentation of my coworkers an intentional act? Perhaps I should be plucking a couple each time I decaffeinate to mark my territory like these other fellows do.

The only thing I know for sure is that the shag covering in the bathrooms is way nasty.

Posted by: Jim at 01:15 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

The results are in! Apparently I owe several people lunch and at least one vacation was spoiled. Ah, the power of the Internet...

(Click to enlarge)

Grand Prize: 5 points
Renee Zellweger, shown here while preparing for her Oscar winning role in "The Marlon Brando Story."
Kathleen

First runner up: 3 points (selected by the Ted Kennedy's 3 martini lunch)
Falling on hard times after his latest documentary failed to get a single Academy Award nomination, director Michael Moore was forced to give up his chauffeur driven SUV and purchase a used car.

His critics were quick to point out that the everyman from Flint bought an import.
Stephen

Second runner up: 2 points (selected by all the rice in China)
Greenpeace, deciding it is too labor-intense to push them into the ocean, has provided alternate transportation.
LeeAnn

Third runner up: 1 point (selected by an infinite number of monkeys via an infinite number of randomly typewritten missives)
Great Goddamn Jim, I'm eating lunch.
Victor

Posted by: Jim at 07:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.

Get Syria out of Lebanon!

I still find it odd that the Arab states have no problem with Syria conquering Lebanon, holding them in thrall as a puppet state, killing their prime ministers, etc. I thought the Arabs were all about (opportunistically defined) ancient sovereign lands.

Oh, right. That's only when it's the Jews who are kicking Arab ass.

Posted by: Jim at 06:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Valentine's Day - you either love it or hate it. Or ignore it, I guess. Or, like the vast majority of humanity, have no idea whatsoever that it even exists.

Where was I? Oh, yeah - it seems that posts on Valentine's Day fall firmly into one of two camps. There are those who hate and despise it as a Hallmark Holiday full of false sentiment and overly public displays of affection. Then there are those who embrace it for its celebration of true sentiment and overly public displays of affection.

Once upon a time I was firmly in the anti-VD camp. That changed and I think I've pinned down just where the change happened. I started to enjoy Valentine's Day when it changed from a day of obligatory gift giving to an excuse for gift giving.

Let me splain. We have a single income with 3 kids. We make do with one car and not a whole lot of superfluous stuff because we are willing to sacrifice such things to bring up our kids the way we want. The downside is a relative dearth of expendable income (aka blow money). I don't have very many opportunities to spoil her like she so richly deserves. I welcome Valentine's Day as it gives me a well established excuse to do what I'd like to be doing every day.

So Happy Valentine's Day, y'all!

Posted by: Jim at 06:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.

Say you've just loaded up the family to go pick up lunch/dinner*. Momma is in her fuzzy slippers, 2 out of 3 kids are in pajamas with only one of them wearing shoes. Dad is wearing the white sweat pants that must never be seen in public.

Would that be indicative of white trashitude or redneckosity?

Not much happening around here today. Morning writing time was taken up with three stories of maddening school atrocities over at Zero Intelligence. Speaking of ZI, it's been getting some serious attention lately. In the last few weeks I've been interviewed by two newspapers, contacted by a scholastic watchdog group and the site will be profiled on an independent law review radio show next week.

Sweet.

There are some leftovers here you can play with, since I've got nothing new at the moment. The caption contest is still open as is the drag queen cat fight. Enjoy!

* Breakfast/lunch is brunch. What is lunch/dinner? Linner? Dunch? Lovely Wife prefers dunch. I'm undecided.

Posted by: Jim at 10:42 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Still at a loss for what to get that special someone on this most important of Hallmark Holidays? Just remember the prime directive of gift giving maxims:

Flowers say "I'm sorry", chocolate says "I love you".

Or if you want to go on the cheap, reading material always works well. Send hubby or hubbette to the New Blog Carnival Showcase Extravaganza or to the venerable classic The Best of Me Symphony.

Heh. I define "bait and switch". Worship me, marketers of yore.

Posted by: Jim at 08:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

iPod Shuffle is neat but it isn't really random. Everything it plays is one of your songs. Your selection only gets bigger when you add new songs and you have no chance of hearing a new song.

The new Napster is also neat. For a fixed fee per month you can listen to anything you want out of a monstrously huge selection of songs. But in your MP3 player it's still the same old thing - you program what you want to hear and there's really no big help to find new things.

What we need is MyFM. Here are the requirements: more...

Posted by: Jim at 11:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Write a caption for the picture. Win fabulous prizes!*

The contest will be open until some time next week.

(Click to enlarge)

* Best caption gets 5 points with another handful thrown around to the rest of the best.

Posted by: Jim at 11:23 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Way back on this post we came up with our drag queen names. Tiffani suggested making it a points contest. Sounded good to me but I figured I'd throw in a twist. I picked out my 10 favorites and I'm going to let y'all decide which is the best, via this ultra secure, cheat-proof polling system*.

Vote carefully as the top finishers will be receiving coveted Snooze Points! This poll will stay open until some time next week.

Posted by: Jim at 10:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Google weighs options after legal decision

Internet search engine Google said on Monday that it was weighing a possible appeal after a Paris court ordered it to pay $260 000 (about R1,6-million) plus costs to luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark.

The high court in central Paris awarded the damages in a decision late on Friday and ordered Google to stop displaying advertisements for Vuitton's rivals whenever Internet users typed Vuitton's name or other trademarks into the search engine.

The case centered on Google's AdWords program. This allows advertisers to bid for high responses in the "Sponsored Links" areas of Google search returns. Google does not restrict the words that advertisers can bid on. Ford, for example, could target an advertisement to appear when people searched for Chevy. The French courts have determined that this is trademark infringement on Google's part.

Um...what? more...

Posted by: Jim at 08:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.