Consider my last post invalid.
All you have to do is play this one They Might Be Giants song.
ka-boom
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
New Bar Game - Exploding Ringo's Head
Some people, when they go to bars, like to play more traditional games: shuffleboard, pool, darts, bar brawl*, liar's dice, Frottage!, Is The Roofie In Your Drink Or Mine?.
I like to play a game that I made up called "Explode Ringo's Head." (mostly safe for work)
* I wanted to use this link, but it isn't entirely safe for work. (And speaking of NSFW, all the links in this are safe for work unless stated otherwise.)
This game originated at my place when Ringo and I were living together and neither of us worked in the morning. I would attempt to play the most random song playlist in an effort to get Ringo to react in some way, shape, or form. The only rule was that each song had to be the "polar opposite" of the previous song.
For example... (and by the way, if you think all of the below links are to the actual songs, well why don't you test out your little theory)
Huey Lewis's Ray Parker, Jr.'s Ghostbusters to stay with a ghost theme. Or if you wanted to get REALLY subtle, you would have chosen The Righteous Brothers - Unchained Melody, as a reference to what this is referencing.
Try this at a bar sometime. It is fun... and a little bit scary because you might get your ass kicked. Put about 10-15 songs in the jukebox with this pattern and wait to see how long it takes people to come up to put new music in the jukebox. Here are two playlists that I've actually done in public...
With Toben on July 4th at Kennedy's:
At Kat's birthday back in 2010 at O'Greenberg's:
(I am open to suggestions for other links to use in this post.)
I like to play a game that I made up called "Explode Ringo's Head." (mostly safe for work)
* I wanted to use this link, but it isn't entirely safe for work. (And speaking of NSFW, all the links in this are safe for work unless stated otherwise.)
This game originated at my place when Ringo and I were living together and neither of us worked in the morning. I would attempt to play the most random song playlist in an effort to get Ringo to react in some way, shape, or form. The only rule was that each song had to be the "polar opposite" of the previous song.
For example... (and by the way, if you think all of the below links are to the actual songs, well why don't you test out your little theory)
- Gustav Holst - The Planets: Jupiter
- Rebecca Black - Friday
- Eminem - Cleanin' Out My Closet
- Bonnie Raitt - Let's Give Em Something To Talk About
- Deadmau5 - Ghosts N Stuff
- Billy Joel - It's Still Rock And Roll To Me
- The Cure - Why Can't I Be You
Try this at a bar sometime. It is fun... and a little bit scary because you might get your ass kicked. Put about 10-15 songs in the jukebox with this pattern and wait to see how long it takes people to come up to put new music in the jukebox. Here are two playlists that I've actually done in public...
With Toben on July 4th at Kennedy's:
- Temple of the Dog - Hunger Strike
- Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger
- Charlies Daniels Band - Devil Goes Down To Georgia
- LMFAO - Party Rock Anthem
- Willie Nelson - You Were Always On My Mind
- Robert Palmer - Simply Irresistible
- Duck Sauce - Barbara Streisand
- Fleetwood Mac - Rhiannon
- Metallica - Enter Sandman
- Owl City - Fireflies
- Radiohead - Paranoid Android
At Kat's birthday back in 2010 at O'Greenberg's:
- Lady Gaga - I Like It Rough
- Led Zeppelin - Dazed and Confused
- 2Pac - Gangsta Party (DEFINITELY not safe for work)
- Air Supply - Makin Love Out Of Nothing At All
- Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower
- Edith Piaf - Hymne a L'amour
- Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall
- James Brown - Get On Up
- Janis Joplin - Me and Bobby McGee
- Rage Against The Machine - Testify
(I am open to suggestions for other links to use in this post.)
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The 2% Challenge
In my "new" line of work, I see a lot of different tax returns. One of the things I look for on a tax return is the amount that someone will deduct as charitable contributions relative to their gross income. In some cases, people are very generous. In others, I'm surprised to see how little they give*.
As I consider my own tax returns, I think of times when my charitable contributions have been low and when they've been higher. Even when I've tried to be more intentional about my giving, I have not always made contributions at the level that I would like. So I am setting a goal for myself that I am calling The 2% Challenge. Or for more dramatic effect...
THE 2% CHALLENGE
My goal for this year, next year, and the foreseeable future is to donate 2% of my gross salary (before taxes) to charitable organizations. 2% is kind of an arbitrary number, but I wanted to pick something that would be ambitious, but achievable.
Like most goals, it is often helpful to have partners to hold each other accountable and to provide encouragement. I invite anyone to join me by setting a similar goal for themselves!
I understand that the prospect of donating 2% of your gross salary is not feasible for everyone. Many of you are raising kids, paying off school debt, paying off mortgages, or otherwise may not be able to afford 2%. But any goal for giving more than you already are is good. If you would like to set a similar goal (1% of your gross, 2% of your salary after taxes), anything you do is fantastic. I won't ask for details about your finances, but I can help you figure out a good goal (and talk about tax benefits to giving, too).
And who says giving money is the only way to participate? You can set a goal of volunteer hours/days and participate that way, too.
Whether or not you participate, I would love to hear about the organizations that you support and how you got involved with them. I would like to share these organizations in another blog post in the future and also with anyone who would like to participate in the 2% Challenge if they need suggestions for organizations to give to.
Thanks for reading and for your responses!
Josh
* I also recognize that there are reasons why people may not report all of their charitable giving on their tax returns. Some people may not get much of a deduction due to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Others may feel that giving is "tainted" if they get a tax deduction for it.
As I consider my own tax returns, I think of times when my charitable contributions have been low and when they've been higher. Even when I've tried to be more intentional about my giving, I have not always made contributions at the level that I would like. So I am setting a goal for myself that I am calling The 2% Challenge. Or for more dramatic effect...
THE 2% CHALLENGE
My goal for this year, next year, and the foreseeable future is to donate 2% of my gross salary (before taxes) to charitable organizations. 2% is kind of an arbitrary number, but I wanted to pick something that would be ambitious, but achievable.
Like most goals, it is often helpful to have partners to hold each other accountable and to provide encouragement. I invite anyone to join me by setting a similar goal for themselves!
I understand that the prospect of donating 2% of your gross salary is not feasible for everyone. Many of you are raising kids, paying off school debt, paying off mortgages, or otherwise may not be able to afford 2%. But any goal for giving more than you already are is good. If you would like to set a similar goal (1% of your gross, 2% of your salary after taxes), anything you do is fantastic. I won't ask for details about your finances, but I can help you figure out a good goal (and talk about tax benefits to giving, too).
And who says giving money is the only way to participate? You can set a goal of volunteer hours/days and participate that way, too.
Whether or not you participate, I would love to hear about the organizations that you support and how you got involved with them. I would like to share these organizations in another blog post in the future and also with anyone who would like to participate in the 2% Challenge if they need suggestions for organizations to give to.
Thanks for reading and for your responses!
Josh
* I also recognize that there are reasons why people may not report all of their charitable giving on their tax returns. Some people may not get much of a deduction due to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Others may feel that giving is "tainted" if they get a tax deduction for it.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Occupy After One Year
Disclaimer: My world view is liberal. While this post will not delve into the presidential race or politics directly, I know that my liberal inclinations will come through in what I write. Clearly, I am comfortable sharing these opinions and I am definitely open to discussion with anyone reading this. If you, however, do not want to read anything that may offend you, consider yourself warned.
I am not the first person to talk about the one-year anniversary of Occupy. I am not the most qualified person to talk about this. I suggest that you read these far more eloquent and informed reflections on Occupy SF. But since you're here now...
I attended two Occupy SF rallies last year, both on nights when the police were threatening to break up the encampment. I was not heavily involved in Occupy and I did not camp out. Having attended definitely raised my awareness about the movement, but in no way do I feel qualified to speak on Occupy's behalf. My motivation for writing this post is three-fold:
In my opinion, Occupy's most important accomplishment was that it introduced a new voice to the national narrative. Occupy's voice was different from most voices that make up the national narrative because it represented a broader and more diverse cross-section of the United States. The typical voices are the vocal minority and the most vocal of those leading up to Occupy had been from the Tea Party movement. Occupy dramatically altered the national narrative. But more on that in a moment.
When I say the “national narrative,” I am talking about a description of what is happening in the United States from a broader perspective. The national narrative, in my mind, is a big picture approach that ignores much of the "chatter." For example, during the presidential campaign, so much is made of whose attack ad said what, what gaffe was made by a candidate, and how that was unfairly covered by different news organizations. This is all simply chatter and most of the time it doesn't mean anything. The national narrative for this presidential campaign centers on how the candidates are seen on a broader scale. Obama is an inspirational speaker and leader who has not accomplished everything he had promised in 2008. Romney is a successful businessman who comes from a privileged background and has struggled to connect with voters. Both Romney and Obama have presented themselves as more conservative candidates than either of their political records indicate. We can get lost in debate over why Obama hasn't accomplished everything he promised or who has been affecting Romy's ability to connect with voters, but none of this alters the overall narrative.
The national narrative should not be confused with a historical perspective. The historical perspective is an even broader picture, and from that perspective much of the “national narrative” becomes chatter.
It's very similar to using Google Maps and zooming out further and further. Daily news stories would be zoomed all the way in, and the view of the entire western hemisphere is the historical perspective. National narrative is the midway point between the two.
In the year prior to the beginning of the Occupy movement, much of the narrative was from the Tea Party conservatives. The midterm elections of 2010 showed the influence of the Tea Party movement and in early 2011, the effects of that election were beginning to be felt. Occupy, if nothing more, countered the Tea Party movement. For all the talk by Tea Partiers about the tyranny of taxes, Occupy brought the idea of the 99% and called attention to the widening income gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of the country. [And believe me, I recognize both movements were about more than the sweeping generalization that I just used.]
[Addition to my original post - I think it is important to explain a couple things here. First, I am doing a comparison of Occupy and the Tea Party because of the timing of their messages, but Occupy was not a response to the Tea Party. I do think that the emergence of the Tea Party played a part in the formation of Occupy, but indirectly so. Second, while the Tea Party is a part of the Republican Party, Occupy rejected the notion of having a political affiliation. Many of Occupy's participants are politically liberal, but one of the central points of Occupy was that the current political system incentivizes politicians to seek personal financial gain to the detriment of what is good for the US citizenry. An affiliation with the Democratic Party would lead to more "business as usual" in DC.]
But where the Tea Party movement had a focused message, Occupy was the expression of general dissatisfaction. To a politician, a focused message made by an easily identifiable group is easy to understand. You can easily identify the constituency that is "speaking" and what they want. In contrast, a sustained rally based on general dissatisfaction is much more disconcerting to a politician. It is much harder to address because the constituency is diverse and their desired outcomes are difficult to identify. When a diverse population rallies like Occupy did, people in positions of power take notice.
If I tell you that I'm organizing a march on City Hall protesting the passing of a controversial bill that will make it illegal for people to lay down or sleep on sidewalks, you might show up for the one rally, feel like you did something, and then go home. Heck, you can even bring your gun to show your support for gun rights even though it isn’t part of the protest.
But if I tell you that I don’t like how politicians are running this country, that corporations have too much power (and that they're the ones who are actually running this country), that foreclosures are out of control, that we need laws to protect the rights of everyone, that politicians should not be able to use special knowledge of government policies for financial gain in the stock market, and that maybe we should get rid of corporations altogether… and that to protest this, I am organizing a group to camp out in cities across the country indefinitely (without even mentioning that the group may possibly get tear-gassed, arrested, or beaten). You'd probably be inclined to let someone else do it.
And yet, tens of thousands of people DID do it... for a couple of months.
Occupy was a broad movement with a broad set of interests – the hardest type of group to mobilize and sustain. It needed a central message to become part of the national narrative, and “We Are The 99%” propelled Occupy into that narrative. If Occupy drew the attention of Homeland Security, then you know for sure that it gained the attention of politicians throughout the country. Occupy does not have a single act to “hang its hat on” like the Tea Party movement has the 2010 midterm elections. But Occupy has made accomplishments directly on a local level (most notably with banks re-structuring mortgages and helping to address the debt crisis) and indirectly by altering the national narrative. A year later, "We are the 99%" still echoes throughout the United States.
As always, thank you for reading. I am sometimes hesitant talking about divisive topics in a public forum because I worry that my friends who disagree with me will interpret my words as a judgment of them (which it is not). If you do decide to respond publicly, I ask that you are respectful of anyone else who has responded. Below are a couple other thoughts I'd like to share as addenda to this post.
Josh
First, I would not have this perspective if Evelyn hadn't invited me out to two rallies in San Francisco early on in our relationship. Attending these rallies made the Occupy movement more than just a topic I read about online.
Second, about ten months ago, I emailed a fair amount of people sharing my experiences at the two evenings I attended. I received many supportive responses to my email and had intended to respond to everyone who had emailed me. I also intended to follow up my email with other messages. Unfortunately, my intentions resulted in inaction. Thank you to those of you who did take the time to read my email and respond so thoughtfully. I am sorry that I did not respond to most of you.
I am not the first person to talk about the one-year anniversary of Occupy. I am not the most qualified person to talk about this. I suggest that you read these far more eloquent and informed reflections on Occupy SF. But since you're here now...
I attended two Occupy SF rallies last year, both on nights when the police were threatening to break up the encampment. I was not heavily involved in Occupy and I did not camp out. Having attended definitely raised my awareness about the movement, but in no way do I feel qualified to speak on Occupy's behalf. My motivation for writing this post is three-fold:
- I want to reflect on the Occupy movement and share my perspectives
- I want to call attention to the one year anniversary of Occupy for those of you for whom it may have flown under the radar, and
- I have a few follow-up posts that I will be writing in the next few weeks that were inspired by my participation in Occupy.
In my opinion, Occupy's most important accomplishment was that it introduced a new voice to the national narrative. Occupy's voice was different from most voices that make up the national narrative because it represented a broader and more diverse cross-section of the United States. The typical voices are the vocal minority and the most vocal of those leading up to Occupy had been from the Tea Party movement. Occupy dramatically altered the national narrative. But more on that in a moment.
When I say the “national narrative,” I am talking about a description of what is happening in the United States from a broader perspective. The national narrative, in my mind, is a big picture approach that ignores much of the "chatter." For example, during the presidential campaign, so much is made of whose attack ad said what, what gaffe was made by a candidate, and how that was unfairly covered by different news organizations. This is all simply chatter and most of the time it doesn't mean anything. The national narrative for this presidential campaign centers on how the candidates are seen on a broader scale. Obama is an inspirational speaker and leader who has not accomplished everything he had promised in 2008. Romney is a successful businessman who comes from a privileged background and has struggled to connect with voters. Both Romney and Obama have presented themselves as more conservative candidates than either of their political records indicate. We can get lost in debate over why Obama hasn't accomplished everything he promised or who has been affecting Romy's ability to connect with voters, but none of this alters the overall narrative.
The national narrative should not be confused with a historical perspective. The historical perspective is an even broader picture, and from that perspective much of the “national narrative” becomes chatter.
It's very similar to using Google Maps and zooming out further and further. Daily news stories would be zoomed all the way in, and the view of the entire western hemisphere is the historical perspective. National narrative is the midway point between the two.
In the year prior to the beginning of the Occupy movement, much of the narrative was from the Tea Party conservatives. The midterm elections of 2010 showed the influence of the Tea Party movement and in early 2011, the effects of that election were beginning to be felt. Occupy, if nothing more, countered the Tea Party movement. For all the talk by Tea Partiers about the tyranny of taxes, Occupy brought the idea of the 99% and called attention to the widening income gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of the country. [And believe me, I recognize both movements were about more than the sweeping generalization that I just used.]
[Addition to my original post - I think it is important to explain a couple things here. First, I am doing a comparison of Occupy and the Tea Party because of the timing of their messages, but Occupy was not a response to the Tea Party. I do think that the emergence of the Tea Party played a part in the formation of Occupy, but indirectly so. Second, while the Tea Party is a part of the Republican Party, Occupy rejected the notion of having a political affiliation. Many of Occupy's participants are politically liberal, but one of the central points of Occupy was that the current political system incentivizes politicians to seek personal financial gain to the detriment of what is good for the US citizenry. An affiliation with the Democratic Party would lead to more "business as usual" in DC.]
But where the Tea Party movement had a focused message, Occupy was the expression of general dissatisfaction. To a politician, a focused message made by an easily identifiable group is easy to understand. You can easily identify the constituency that is "speaking" and what they want. In contrast, a sustained rally based on general dissatisfaction is much more disconcerting to a politician. It is much harder to address because the constituency is diverse and their desired outcomes are difficult to identify. When a diverse population rallies like Occupy did, people in positions of power take notice.
If I tell you that I'm organizing a march on City Hall protesting the passing of a controversial bill that will make it illegal for people to lay down or sleep on sidewalks, you might show up for the one rally, feel like you did something, and then go home. Heck, you can even bring your gun to show your support for gun rights even though it isn’t part of the protest.
But if I tell you that I don’t like how politicians are running this country, that corporations have too much power (and that they're the ones who are actually running this country), that foreclosures are out of control, that we need laws to protect the rights of everyone, that politicians should not be able to use special knowledge of government policies for financial gain in the stock market, and that maybe we should get rid of corporations altogether… and that to protest this, I am organizing a group to camp out in cities across the country indefinitely (without even mentioning that the group may possibly get tear-gassed, arrested, or beaten). You'd probably be inclined to let someone else do it.
And yet, tens of thousands of people DID do it... for a couple of months.
Occupy was a broad movement with a broad set of interests – the hardest type of group to mobilize and sustain. It needed a central message to become part of the national narrative, and “We Are The 99%” propelled Occupy into that narrative. If Occupy drew the attention of Homeland Security, then you know for sure that it gained the attention of politicians throughout the country. Occupy does not have a single act to “hang its hat on” like the Tea Party movement has the 2010 midterm elections. But Occupy has made accomplishments directly on a local level (most notably with banks re-structuring mortgages and helping to address the debt crisis) and indirectly by altering the national narrative. A year later, "We are the 99%" still echoes throughout the United States.
As always, thank you for reading. I am sometimes hesitant talking about divisive topics in a public forum because I worry that my friends who disagree with me will interpret my words as a judgment of them (which it is not). If you do decide to respond publicly, I ask that you are respectful of anyone else who has responded. Below are a couple other thoughts I'd like to share as addenda to this post.
Josh
First, I would not have this perspective if Evelyn hadn't invited me out to two rallies in San Francisco early on in our relationship. Attending these rallies made the Occupy movement more than just a topic I read about online.
Second, about ten months ago, I emailed a fair amount of people sharing my experiences at the two evenings I attended. I received many supportive responses to my email and had intended to respond to everyone who had emailed me. I also intended to follow up my email with other messages. Unfortunately, my intentions resulted in inaction. Thank you to those of you who did take the time to read my email and respond so thoughtfully. I am sorry that I did not respond to most of you.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Time For A Tragedy
Over a year ago, one of my friends posed a question to me (and other friends of his), "What is the group noun for hipsters?"
Ok, full disclosure, I had no idea what the question even meant - I wasn't familiar with the term 'group noun' so I asked him to explain. He gave me several examples, there's a pod of whales, a pack of wolves, a murder of crows, a school of fish, etc. So what is it for hipsters?
I have the answer. The only answer. Introducing...
A Tragedy of Hipsters
When I first came up with this a while ago, I was content to just let it be something that a couple of us laughed at. But now, I want everyone to start using this. So please do me a favor, every time you see hipsters walking or gathering somewhere in a group, point them out and say, "hey, check out that tragedy." I've done it a couple times now, it's remarkable how good it feels.
But wait, there's more...
I need help opening a bar here in the Mission in SF. The bar will be called The Tragedies. It'll be a very ironic place. But we WILL set it up so that every night, people dressed in bright colors walk in and put some Sheryl Crow on the jukebox or like "I'm Walking On Sunshine" just so that everyone can turn and look and judge the people who are totally out of place.
The theme song for the joint will be "Tragedy" by the Bee Gees. Can someone help me purchase the rights to the song from the Bee Gees?
Imagine being the bartender at this bar. A hipster comes to the bar by himself and orders a pint of PBR. The bartender hands him the beer and says, "How's your tragedy?" The hipster rolls his eyes and sighs an annoyed sigh.
Help me turn this dream into a reality!
Ok, full disclosure, I had no idea what the question even meant - I wasn't familiar with the term 'group noun' so I asked him to explain. He gave me several examples, there's a pod of whales, a pack of wolves, a murder of crows, a school of fish, etc. So what is it for hipsters?
I have the answer. The only answer. Introducing...
A Tragedy of Hipsters
When I first came up with this a while ago, I was content to just let it be something that a couple of us laughed at. But now, I want everyone to start using this. So please do me a favor, every time you see hipsters walking or gathering somewhere in a group, point them out and say, "hey, check out that tragedy." I've done it a couple times now, it's remarkable how good it feels.
But wait, there's more...
I need help opening a bar here in the Mission in SF. The bar will be called The Tragedies. It'll be a very ironic place. But we WILL set it up so that every night, people dressed in bright colors walk in and put some Sheryl Crow on the jukebox or like "I'm Walking On Sunshine" just so that everyone can turn and look and judge the people who are totally out of place.
The theme song for the joint will be "Tragedy" by the Bee Gees. Can someone help me purchase the rights to the song from the Bee Gees?
Imagine being the bartender at this bar. A hipster comes to the bar by himself and orders a pint of PBR. The bartender hands him the beer and says, "How's your tragedy?" The hipster rolls his eyes and sighs an annoyed sigh.
Help me turn this dream into a reality!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
