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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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!
Thursday, May 19, 2011
En-raptured
The way I see it, any predictions about the end of the world or the rapture or whatever are reminiscent of email scams. They sound pretty plausible at first, but when you look a little more closely, you can find some of the tell-tale signs that it's completely fabricated.
1) Use of numerology without any meaning
I was going to write something, but then came across this. It captures a lot of my thinking, but actually has some sort of basis in research.
2) Reliance on human societal constructs
Harold Camping has declared that the end of the world will begin with New Zealand, one of the first countries to experience the "new" day. However, New Zealand is a COMPLETELY arbitrary starting point since we devised the International Date Line. With Y2K, this made sense. With the rapture, not so much.
Beyond that, the sole use of the solar calendar is also problematic since that is only one way to measure the passage of time. Since ancient religions (and Jesus) used a lunar calendar rather than a solar calendar, any prediction NOT based at least in part on the lunar calendar is ridiculous.
3) Reliance on Time as a constant
We're all familiar with our old pal Einstein and his "theory" of relativity. But time as most of us know it, is once again a societal construct. Relativity alone explains the following (that has been tested). Let's say you were about to board a plane to fly around the world non-stop. Just before you got on the plane, you synchronized your watch to a friend of yours who would stay on the ground and be waiting for you to land. Once you landed and compared watches, you would find that your watch is a little bit behind the watch of the person who stayed on the ground.
Look at this
4) The Bible tells us it's going to happen
No offense to any devout believers out there, but I've always had an issue with the whole, "the Bible tells us so" argument. Especially when the source that is cited is the King James Bible. The Bible has been translated so many times that it seems unlikely that one version is the "truth." And that completely overlooks cultural differences that are inherent in language and that certain things just don't translate from language to language.
My favorite example of this comes from the 10 Commandments. Commandment 6 is sometimes translates to say, "Thou shalt not murder." Other translations state, "Thou shalt not kill." The two are similar, but have very different meanings.
5) That the Rapture happens in our lifetime
This is the most telling feature that the rapture prediction is wrong - it puts way too much meaning on the present. The idea that we will be witness to the end of the world is a narcissistic notion. Give me a prediction that it will happen in 2500 years, and I am much more likely to believe you because there's nothing in it for you. But the idea that the messiah, the rapture, first contact from aliens, or the zombie apocalypse will happen in our lifetime is most likely due to a heightened sense of self-importance that is fairly rampant in the US.
1) Use of numerology without any meaning
I was going to write something, but then came across this. It captures a lot of my thinking, but actually has some sort of basis in research.
2) Reliance on human societal constructs
Harold Camping has declared that the end of the world will begin with New Zealand, one of the first countries to experience the "new" day. However, New Zealand is a COMPLETELY arbitrary starting point since we devised the International Date Line. With Y2K, this made sense. With the rapture, not so much.
Beyond that, the sole use of the solar calendar is also problematic since that is only one way to measure the passage of time. Since ancient religions (and Jesus) used a lunar calendar rather than a solar calendar, any prediction NOT based at least in part on the lunar calendar is ridiculous.
3) Reliance on Time as a constant
We're all familiar with our old pal Einstein and his "theory" of relativity. But time as most of us know it, is once again a societal construct. Relativity alone explains the following (that has been tested). Let's say you were about to board a plane to fly around the world non-stop. Just before you got on the plane, you synchronized your watch to a friend of yours who would stay on the ground and be waiting for you to land. Once you landed and compared watches, you would find that your watch is a little bit behind the watch of the person who stayed on the ground.
Look at this
4) The Bible tells us it's going to happen
No offense to any devout believers out there, but I've always had an issue with the whole, "the Bible tells us so" argument. Especially when the source that is cited is the King James Bible. The Bible has been translated so many times that it seems unlikely that one version is the "truth." And that completely overlooks cultural differences that are inherent in language and that certain things just don't translate from language to language.
My favorite example of this comes from the 10 Commandments. Commandment 6 is sometimes translates to say, "Thou shalt not murder." Other translations state, "Thou shalt not kill." The two are similar, but have very different meanings.
5) That the Rapture happens in our lifetime
This is the most telling feature that the rapture prediction is wrong - it puts way too much meaning on the present. The idea that we will be witness to the end of the world is a narcissistic notion. Give me a prediction that it will happen in 2500 years, and I am much more likely to believe you because there's nothing in it for you. But the idea that the messiah, the rapture, first contact from aliens, or the zombie apocalypse will happen in our lifetime is most likely due to a heightened sense of self-importance that is fairly rampant in the US.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
What's the conspiracy here?
I think too many people are spouting out the phrase "conspiracy theory" and are just not using their heads at all.
Let's take a step back here and review.
First off, I was a little bit surprised by how excited I was that we ended up raiding the compound Osama bin Laden was hiding in and that we killed him. I genuinely felt a sense of relief and pride that he has been hunted and killed. I believe that the world is a much better place without him and that he was a true villain.
Yesterday afternoon as I read account after account of the operation, I came to realize how truly gutsy this was and all that was at stake. We sent 10-12 of our most elite military personnel in to detain and/or kill him. I'm sure that there were contingency plans, but this was going to be an attack that relied on the element of surprise and was based on intelligence that was hopefully accurate. Think of the ramifications if the mission failed... we would lose 10-12 of our most elite soldiers and they would be killed most heinously. As a president and commander-in-chief, Obama would have been severely hamstrung. His leadership would have been questioned throughout the remainder of his term and morale in the country would be low.
So this brings me back to the whole question of the conspiracy theory that everyone seems to be touting. "We need to show pictures of Osama bin Laden's dead body to quell the conspiracy theorists out there."
What's the conspiracy?
I could come up with two seemingly plausible theories...
1) We went into the compound, but instead of getting Osama bin Laden, we got one of his body doubles. Bin Laden himself is in hiding elsewhere. The DNA testing was never done (but we said it was) and the body was "buried" at sea so that no one could discover the fake body.
Sure, that's plausible EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT BIN LADEN WOULD STILL BE OUT THERE! All he would need to do is send out a new video and the whole ruse would be up. If we didn't know exactly where bin Laden was, it would be all-too-easy for him to issue a video.
2) We actually managed to capture and kill bin Laden months ago, but President Obama was waiting for the right time to release the news to the public so that he could use it for the greatest political gain.
Aside from the fact that Obama could have used this jump in approval ratings since he came into office, sure. Though it is curious timing that he'd wait for almost the entire mid-west and south to be evacuating their homes and/or without power due to tornadoes and massive flooding.
3) The third and most ridiculous conspiracy theory that I was able to imagine was this:
We didn't actually get bin Laden. In fact, President Obama and Osama bin Laden are working together due to Obama's secret muslim beliefs. Both Obama and bin Laden know that if the economy continues to stay at the same pace or improve that Obama is virtually guaranteed a second term. So they agreed that Obama would "capture and kill" bin Laden. Obama would sell it to the military that "it is in America's best interests to believe that we successfully captured and killed bin Laden. As long as bin Laden stays underground for the next year and a half and doesn't give away the plan. Obama then turns traitor and helps al Qaeda destroy freedom and democracy for the world.
As soon as someone can explain this to me, then maybe I'll understand why people believe that the US needs to release the pictures of bin Laden's dead body. Don't we realize how much the release of the photos would be a rallying point for al Qaeda? I still have the video of the planes flying into the Twin Towers scorched into my memory. It's part of the reason why I feel so happy that we got bin Laden. Releasing the photographs gives other members of al Qaeda that image to motivate them to try harder to kill more innocents and inflict terror on the world.
I don't need to see the pictures. I believe that bin Laden is dead, not because I trust our president and our government. I believe that bin Laden is dead because if he was alive, it would be SO easy for him to prove that he's still alive. Shit, if I were al Qaeda, I would have dressed up a look alike to have shot and released a video the day after the strike that said, "Hey US, you missed. You got my body double and not me." But they DIDN'T issue that video. There has been nothing from al Qaeda at all. They're scrambling because their leader is gone, picture or no.
Let's take a step back here and review.
First off, I was a little bit surprised by how excited I was that we ended up raiding the compound Osama bin Laden was hiding in and that we killed him. I genuinely felt a sense of relief and pride that he has been hunted and killed. I believe that the world is a much better place without him and that he was a true villain.
Yesterday afternoon as I read account after account of the operation, I came to realize how truly gutsy this was and all that was at stake. We sent 10-12 of our most elite military personnel in to detain and/or kill him. I'm sure that there were contingency plans, but this was going to be an attack that relied on the element of surprise and was based on intelligence that was hopefully accurate. Think of the ramifications if the mission failed... we would lose 10-12 of our most elite soldiers and they would be killed most heinously. As a president and commander-in-chief, Obama would have been severely hamstrung. His leadership would have been questioned throughout the remainder of his term and morale in the country would be low.
So this brings me back to the whole question of the conspiracy theory that everyone seems to be touting. "We need to show pictures of Osama bin Laden's dead body to quell the conspiracy theorists out there."
What's the conspiracy?
I could come up with two seemingly plausible theories...
1) We went into the compound, but instead of getting Osama bin Laden, we got one of his body doubles. Bin Laden himself is in hiding elsewhere. The DNA testing was never done (but we said it was) and the body was "buried" at sea so that no one could discover the fake body.
Sure, that's plausible EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT BIN LADEN WOULD STILL BE OUT THERE! All he would need to do is send out a new video and the whole ruse would be up. If we didn't know exactly where bin Laden was, it would be all-too-easy for him to issue a video.
2) We actually managed to capture and kill bin Laden months ago, but President Obama was waiting for the right time to release the news to the public so that he could use it for the greatest political gain.
Aside from the fact that Obama could have used this jump in approval ratings since he came into office, sure. Though it is curious timing that he'd wait for almost the entire mid-west and south to be evacuating their homes and/or without power due to tornadoes and massive flooding.
3) The third and most ridiculous conspiracy theory that I was able to imagine was this:
We didn't actually get bin Laden. In fact, President Obama and Osama bin Laden are working together due to Obama's secret muslim beliefs. Both Obama and bin Laden know that if the economy continues to stay at the same pace or improve that Obama is virtually guaranteed a second term. So they agreed that Obama would "capture and kill" bin Laden. Obama would sell it to the military that "it is in America's best interests to believe that we successfully captured and killed bin Laden. As long as bin Laden stays underground for the next year and a half and doesn't give away the plan. Obama then turns traitor and helps al Qaeda destroy freedom and democracy for the world.
As soon as someone can explain this to me, then maybe I'll understand why people believe that the US needs to release the pictures of bin Laden's dead body. Don't we realize how much the release of the photos would be a rallying point for al Qaeda? I still have the video of the planes flying into the Twin Towers scorched into my memory. It's part of the reason why I feel so happy that we got bin Laden. Releasing the photographs gives other members of al Qaeda that image to motivate them to try harder to kill more innocents and inflict terror on the world.
I don't need to see the pictures. I believe that bin Laden is dead, not because I trust our president and our government. I believe that bin Laden is dead because if he was alive, it would be SO easy for him to prove that he's still alive. Shit, if I were al Qaeda, I would have dressed up a look alike to have shot and released a video the day after the strike that said, "Hey US, you missed. You got my body double and not me." But they DIDN'T issue that video. There has been nothing from al Qaeda at all. They're scrambling because their leader is gone, picture or no.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Thoughts While Trying Not To Shoot Myself In The Face
I am sitting in my tax accounting class... my extraordinarily poorly taught tax accounting class and the only thing keeping me going is the knowledge that I have only ONE MORE 8 HOUR LECTURE left and that is next week. I think I can make it without setting myself on fire, jumping out the window, or otherwise demonstrating my true feelings about this class.
I just spent the last 45 minutes getting sporadic updates on the Sharks' game 2 win against the Red Wings. But now that that is over, how am I going to keep myself from falling asleep in class? By updating my blog!
- Our professor sounds like a shrill muppet. If you've seen Avenue Q, I think she sounds like Kate Monster. She also starts every other sentence with this lilting, "Sooooooo" which just makes her sound more ridiculous. She also has very unreal looking hair.
- There was an ad here at Santa Clara for a campus-wide Drag Party. The "catchy" tag line for the party is "Put Your Gender In a Blender." That's actually one place where I am never putting my gender.
- The longer I sit in this class, the less I think I'm going to make it today. You know the part in the bible where there is pretty much just a listing of rules (Deuteronomy and Numbers)? This class is like reading that part REALLY slowly with lots of review. Two more weeks. Two more weeks.
- I'm tempted to try to distract my fellow classmates by playing videos silently online.
- This coming week, I get to babysit my niece and nephew for two days. Is anyone else terrified by the prospect of me looking after two children who are 6 and 7? I've been informed that they have to eat three meals a day and that they won't just go and buy their own food.
- Last night, I got to hang out with my friend Dylan who apparently has been gone for NINE years!! I can't believe that he'd been living in Germany that long. I thought it had just been 5 years. Crazy. Dylan was one of the two best defensive soccer players I've ever played with and I'm psyched to have a chance to play on the field with him again this Tuesday.
- I'm very surprised that we haven't really heard of any new doomsday groups after this years' environmental events: Japan earthquake and tsunami, mid-west flooding, and south tornadoes. There have to be some crazies out there working on SOMEthing. Right?
- There's nothing like reaching into your pocket the night after drinking and finding MORE money there than you thought you had. It turns out that I had temporarily forgotten that I finally go paid for winning an NCAA basketball pool. Hot damn.
OK, time to go do practice problems.
I just spent the last 45 minutes getting sporadic updates on the Sharks' game 2 win against the Red Wings. But now that that is over, how am I going to keep myself from falling asleep in class? By updating my blog!
- Our professor sounds like a shrill muppet. If you've seen Avenue Q, I think she sounds like Kate Monster. She also starts every other sentence with this lilting, "Sooooooo" which just makes her sound more ridiculous. She also has very unreal looking hair.
- There was an ad here at Santa Clara for a campus-wide Drag Party. The "catchy" tag line for the party is "Put Your Gender In a Blender." That's actually one place where I am never putting my gender.
- The longer I sit in this class, the less I think I'm going to make it today. You know the part in the bible where there is pretty much just a listing of rules (Deuteronomy and Numbers)? This class is like reading that part REALLY slowly with lots of review. Two more weeks. Two more weeks.
- I'm tempted to try to distract my fellow classmates by playing videos silently online.
- This coming week, I get to babysit my niece and nephew for two days. Is anyone else terrified by the prospect of me looking after two children who are 6 and 7? I've been informed that they have to eat three meals a day and that they won't just go and buy their own food.
- Last night, I got to hang out with my friend Dylan who apparently has been gone for NINE years!! I can't believe that he'd been living in Germany that long. I thought it had just been 5 years. Crazy. Dylan was one of the two best defensive soccer players I've ever played with and I'm psyched to have a chance to play on the field with him again this Tuesday.
- I'm very surprised that we haven't really heard of any new doomsday groups after this years' environmental events: Japan earthquake and tsunami, mid-west flooding, and south tornadoes. There have to be some crazies out there working on SOMEthing. Right?
- There's nothing like reaching into your pocket the night after drinking and finding MORE money there than you thought you had. It turns out that I had temporarily forgotten that I finally go paid for winning an NCAA basketball pool. Hot damn.
OK, time to go do practice problems.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
My Imagination 1 - Reality 0
A couple days ago, I went into work like any other day. It was a Tuesday - the day after Valentine's Day. Upon my arrival, I proceeded to carry out my normal morning routine: check my work email, see if my dad (boss) needs anything, and then go get water from the kitchen. And that is where my imagination got the better of my day.
Someone from our office had purchased nine or ten boxes of cookies. No, not Girl Scout Cookies. These were official Cougar Mountain Cookies.
Now as it turns out (and which I just found out today), Cougar Mountain Cookies are from Washington. Some guy started making cookies way back in 1988 and perfected his recipe and has been running this small operation for years. He named the company after a nearby BO-RING!!!!
I liked the story I came up with better...
About five years ago, three 49 year-old women were reunited through difficult circumstances. They had been friends since grade school, but had fallen out of touch until they met up quite coincidentally at a 'recent divorcee' support group. As it turns out, all three of them were going through divorces all at the same time and were looking to re-establish themselves and take the world by storm. You see, all three of them were still very attractive and they had come to see their divorces as a second chance at life. A liberation, if you will. And even better, all three of them came through the divorce financially secure.
Laura, Vicky, and Laura started spending much more time together: going out to bars, going out to fancy dinners, all the normal stuff you'd see on Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. But the one thing they realized that they could do better than anyone else they knew was bake cookies. They could bake the FUCK out of cookies.
So they started going to farmer's markets to sell their homemade cookies and people definitely started to notice. One day at the markey, the head chef of a nearby prominent restaurant stopped by their booth. "I need to serve your cookies from my dessert menu," he told them because they were the most excellent cookies he had ever had. "What is your company called?" Laura, Vicky, and Laura looked at each other - they had never even considered that they would turn this hobby into a business, much less need a company name. Vicky, in a moment of inspiration, blurted out, "Cougar Mountain Cookies." [Quick side note, I considered going a VERY different direction with this.]
After the restauranteur left, both Laura's turned to Vicky. "Where'd you come up with that name?" Vicky reminded them that YEARS ago, they were girl scouts together and sold cookies way back in the day. She had been toying with the idea of starting a scout troop for single women. But instead of Woman Scouts or Girl Scouts 2, she had been considering Cougar Scouts. Instead of merit badges for sewing or baking, they would have to earn badges for seducing and sex: a recent college grad, a struggling artist, a celebrity. But it wouldn't just be about sex, there would be merit badges for helping a friend through a difficult time, yoga, philanthropy, and whatever else they wanted to inspire them to continue to grow.
Ever the enterprising woman, Vicky's plan involved an umbrella organization called Cougar Mountain that would manage and run all of the various Cougar entities. And thus Cougar Mountain Cookies was born.
Now tell me, which story do you prefer - the REAL version of Cougar Mountain Cookies or mine?
Someone from our office had purchased nine or ten boxes of cookies. No, not Girl Scout Cookies. These were official Cougar Mountain Cookies.
Now as it turns out (and which I just found out today), Cougar Mountain Cookies are from Washington. Some guy started making cookies way back in 1988 and perfected his recipe and has been running this small operation for years. He named the company after a nearby BO-RING!!!!
I liked the story I came up with better...
About five years ago, three 49 year-old women were reunited through difficult circumstances. They had been friends since grade school, but had fallen out of touch until they met up quite coincidentally at a 'recent divorcee' support group. As it turns out, all three of them were going through divorces all at the same time and were looking to re-establish themselves and take the world by storm. You see, all three of them were still very attractive and they had come to see their divorces as a second chance at life. A liberation, if you will. And even better, all three of them came through the divorce financially secure.
Laura, Vicky, and Laura started spending much more time together: going out to bars, going out to fancy dinners, all the normal stuff you'd see on Desperate Housewives or Sex in the City. But the one thing they realized that they could do better than anyone else they knew was bake cookies. They could bake the FUCK out of cookies.
So they started going to farmer's markets to sell their homemade cookies and people definitely started to notice. One day at the markey, the head chef of a nearby prominent restaurant stopped by their booth. "I need to serve your cookies from my dessert menu," he told them because they were the most excellent cookies he had ever had. "What is your company called?" Laura, Vicky, and Laura looked at each other - they had never even considered that they would turn this hobby into a business, much less need a company name. Vicky, in a moment of inspiration, blurted out, "Cougar Mountain Cookies." [Quick side note, I considered going a VERY different direction with this.]
After the restauranteur left, both Laura's turned to Vicky. "Where'd you come up with that name?" Vicky reminded them that YEARS ago, they were girl scouts together and sold cookies way back in the day. She had been toying with the idea of starting a scout troop for single women. But instead of Woman Scouts or Girl Scouts 2, she had been considering Cougar Scouts. Instead of merit badges for sewing or baking, they would have to earn badges for seducing and sex: a recent college grad, a struggling artist, a celebrity. But it wouldn't just be about sex, there would be merit badges for helping a friend through a difficult time, yoga, philanthropy, and whatever else they wanted to inspire them to continue to grow.
Ever the enterprising woman, Vicky's plan involved an umbrella organization called Cougar Mountain that would manage and run all of the various Cougar entities. And thus Cougar Mountain Cookies was born.
Now tell me, which story do you prefer - the REAL version of Cougar Mountain Cookies or mine?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
