Q: Bill Jeffers - Why are Pittsford residents such whiney pussies? I wrote a letter to the editor to try to straighten them out, but I don't think it will work. (Backstory: Nazareth wants to expand and the neighborhood thinks the world is ending).
A: I'll admit that I'm totally unfamiliar with this story, and can thus only answer it based on the letter that Bill submitted to the Democrat and Chronicle. It sounds to me like Nazareth College wants to expand, and the natives are restless, as it were. I'm not sure whether the land that is in question is publicly owned or privately owned. If it's public land, or land that the college will be rightfully purchasing, then I would think that the college has every right to do what they want with the land. If people are being forced out of their homes, then that's another story. I'm pretty sure that it's the former, though.
Again, I'm pleading total ignorance on this, and thus don't feel right rendering judgment on the residents of the town of Pittsford. Personally, I tend to think that the following rule applies: your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose. In this case, it means that the college should be allowed to expand, but only if the impact to their neighbors is "minimal". What's minimal? That's a good question. I certainly wouldn't want a parking lot to suddenly spring up in my backyard. Should the residents of Pittsford complain? It's their right to complain, and to vote on these things. I tend to think that allowing the college to expand would be a good thing, but ultimately it's not my decision. I'm not a taxpayer in the town of Pittsford.
Q: Karyn Graves - Can you buy an attachment for an ATV or riding lawn mower so that you could use it like a zamboni on a backyard pond?
A: As a matter of fact, you can! And directly from the Zamboni website too. It's called the Zamboni Model 100, and it looks to be something that you mount to the back of a normal lawn tractor. Very cool! To be honest, I was quite surprised to learn this, and once again reminds me of why I started this project in the first place. Thanks, Karyn!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
21 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Where can I get a cheap bubble hockey table?
A: There are many locations on the internets that offer bubble hockey tables. Your definition of the word "cheap" dictates which of them to choose. Below is a quick and dirty list:
http://www.americansupersports.com/stick-hockey-tables/bubble-hockey-tables.html
http://www.gametablesusa.com/
http://www.justairhockeytables.com/
In addition, I'd suggest looking at places like craigslist.com and ebay.
Q: Karyn Graves - Does the technology exist for the production of vehicles (that can hold more than 1 person) and can get at least 70mpg (electric/diesel/whatever)? How long will it be before they are mass produced and people actually buy them?
A: Let me be the first to say that I am by no means qualified to answer this question. Actually, I'm not really qualified to answer most of the questions I get, but I'll give this one some thought.
I suspect that the answer to your first question is yes. Automotive companies put millions of dollars into research every year. I expect that there are some fancy engines under development that can push fuel economies to new and uncharted heights. But if that's the case, then why haven't these technologies made their way onto our driveways? I suspect that the answer is that the cost of these technologies outweighs the benefits. Sure, you can have a car that gets 100mpg, but if it costs $200,000, who wants it?
As to the question of when these technologies (assuming they exist) will become available, I think the answer is "as soon as they're ready". I'm not someone who thinks that there is some grand conspiracy between oil companies and car manufacturers. It just doesn't make sense to me. If a car company had the technology to make a car that could get 100mpg and cost roughly the same as an existing car, they would release it, and it would sell like hotcakes.
Sorry this answer is fairly incomplete. I'll give it some more thought, and if I come up with anything else I'll post an addendum.
A: There are many locations on the internets that offer bubble hockey tables. Your definition of the word "cheap" dictates which of them to choose. Below is a quick and dirty list:
http://www.americansupersports.com/stick-hockey-tables/bubble-hockey-tables.html
http://www.gametablesusa.com/
http://www.justairhockeytables.com/
In addition, I'd suggest looking at places like craigslist.com and ebay.
Q: Karyn Graves - Does the technology exist for the production of vehicles (that can hold more than 1 person) and can get at least 70mpg (electric/diesel/whatever)? How long will it be before they are mass produced and people actually buy them?
A: Let me be the first to say that I am by no means qualified to answer this question. Actually, I'm not really qualified to answer most of the questions I get, but I'll give this one some thought.
I suspect that the answer to your first question is yes. Automotive companies put millions of dollars into research every year. I expect that there are some fancy engines under development that can push fuel economies to new and uncharted heights. But if that's the case, then why haven't these technologies made their way onto our driveways? I suspect that the answer is that the cost of these technologies outweighs the benefits. Sure, you can have a car that gets 100mpg, but if it costs $200,000, who wants it?
As to the question of when these technologies (assuming they exist) will become available, I think the answer is "as soon as they're ready". I'm not someone who thinks that there is some grand conspiracy between oil companies and car manufacturers. It just doesn't make sense to me. If a car company had the technology to make a car that could get 100mpg and cost roughly the same as an existing car, they would release it, and it would sell like hotcakes.
Sorry this answer is fairly incomplete. I'll give it some more thought, and if I come up with anything else I'll post an addendum.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
20 - Answers (Part 2)
What follows are very long answers to the final two questions from the last installment of "Ask Mitssob".
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you seriously think George Bush II was good for this country???
A: Before I actually answer your question, I’d like to discuss the wording of the question itself. Simply reading your question aloud leads me to think that you already know the answer, and that nothing I say is going to convince you one way or another. But I know you, Bill, and I know that you’re a reasonable man (and no, I don’t mean to patronize you). I’ll do my best to convince you that my answer is correct.
Your choice to call President Bush “George Bush II” gives me the chance to discuss something that has been bothering me since the 2000 Presidential campaign. The current President of the United States is named George Walker Bush. He is not “George Bush II”, nor is he “George Bush Jr.” I realize that it seems like a minor thing, but I think it’s important.
In order to properly answer this question I will look at the President’s performance in regards to three large areas that all Presidents must deal with: economics, judges, and national security. I’ll discuss what he has done, and lay it against what I think of his actions. In this way I should be able to come to an answer to your question. Let me preface this by saying that my analysis is by no means complete. There are other areas that Presidents must deal with, and if you’d like me to comment on these, then feel free to ask. I could obviously spend more time on this, but I think I’ve come to a good answer.
First up is economics. While the ultimate responsibility for setting tax rates and budgets belongs to the Congress, the President submits economic proposals for consideration. The economic health of the United States is generally considered to be a good barometer of the performance of a President, and thus I think it’s a good measure of how good a President has been for this country.
So how has the US fared economically during the Bush administration? During the campaign of 2000 the economy was heading into a recession. I specifically remember then-candidate Bush bringing that fact up several times, only to be laughed at and dismissed as trying to talk down the Clinton administration. When President Bush took office in January of 2001, the economy had entered a recession, exactly as he had predicted. The stock market “bubble” had burst, and projected budget surpluses had become actual budget deficits. In short, things were on the decline. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the economy took another major shock. Unemployment climbed, the stock market continued down.
As is usually the case with matters of economics, the current President gets blame (or credit, as the case may be) for the economy that their predecessor leaves behind. In this case, President Bush was immediately tagged with the recession. In the months following 9/11, the President implemented a strategy to reverse the recession. That strategy worked. Therefore, credit for the economic recovery that followed the recession belongs to President Bush. Let me repeat that: President Bush is in large measure responsible for the healthy and strong economy that exists today. He lowered tax rates for all Americans, which put more money into the economy as a whole. He cut capital gains taxes which encouraged investment. The investment led to jobs, which led to lower unemployment, which led to more people making more money. It also led to a surge in the stock markets in America, which created more wealth both for corporations and individuals. In fact, the only area I wish that the President had done a better job with was putting pressure on Congress to lower spending by the federal government.
If you don’t believe me, or think that I’m painting a rosy picture, then ask yourself this: economically, how are you doing? Do you have a job? Does it pay well? Do you own a house? If so, what interest rate are you paying? How are your friends doing? Do they have jobs? Do they own houses? If the economy were doing poorly, would you be able to answer those questions the same way? I didn’t think so. Speaking for myself, economically I’m doing fine. Quite well, in fact. Therefore, I think that President Bush has been very good for this country economically.
Next, let me talk for a brief moment about the judicial branch. One of the ways that a President can leave his mark on the country is in the area of judicial nominations, both to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. I personally think that President Bush has been good for the country in this area. He has nominated highly qualified judges to the federal bench, and his two nominees to the Supreme Court were both excellent men. What I like about his nominees is that they believe that the role of a judge is as an interpreter of laws, not the creator of laws. I share this belief, which is why I think the President has been good for the country in this area.
Finally, let me cover the very broad area of national security. This is the primary purpose of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces of the United States. What he says, goes.
On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was the victim of a terrorist attack. Does President Bush deserve some blame for not preventing this attack? Absolutely. Excuses can be made, of course. He had only been in office for nine months at the time of the attacks. Given the nature of governmental bureaucracy, any policy changes he might have desired did not have time to be implemented. However, there were indications that an attack was coming, and those indications were not handled properly. The President, as I said before, is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him.
In response to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush openly declared war on terrorism. He launched a military campaign to oust some of the organizational structure behind the attacks from the nation of Afghanistan. Was this specific action good for our country? Honestly, I don’t think so. Do I think that 9/11 merited a response? Absolutely. But what that response should have been I am not sure. Do I fault the President for his actions in this area? No, not really. He was under pressure to do something, and overthrowing the Taliban was certainly not the worst thing he could have done. Doing nothing would have been the worst thing. The President understood that, and so he plotted a course of action and followed it. The fact that he did something was good for the country, though again, I would probably have chosen a different course.
Then in April of 2002 the buildup to the eventual War in Iraq began. To set the stage, I’m going to make a number of assertions. If you doubt these, then look them up yourself. I don’t have the time or the patience for an argument.
- Iraq was in violation of 14 separate UN Resolutions in April of 2003.
- The war that had been declared against Iraq in 1991 had never legally ended. Sadaam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire that had been established with the United States by firing at American military planes flying patrols in the no-fly zone over central Iraq.
- There were stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” (consisting primarily of chemical weapons) in Iraq. Those weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria during the year long buildup to the war between April of 2002 and April of 2003.
- There were functional ties between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda (the group behind 9/11). By “functional ties” I do not mean “Iraq was responsible for 9/11”. And by the way, I find it insulting that I even had to type that previous sentence.
- Iraq provided material support to terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.
In April of 2003 the invasion of Iraq began, concluding a few weeks later with the capture of the capital of Baghdad. In the three and a half years that followed, the United States has been fighting to give the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves. This has resulted in the deaths of over 3000 American servicemen, and the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists.
So has this been good for the country? That’s hard to say. I think that the end result of the war (a stable and democratic Iraq) will be good for the country. However, the public face of that war is most certainly not good for this country. The terrorists know this, which is why they continue to stage attacks in Iraq. I use the word "stage" very carefully. They know that by showing American citizens death, American citizens will eventually become tired of it and demand an end to it. It is happening now, and it is definitely not good for the country. So my final verdict on national security is that the President has not been good for the country. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but his actions have not played out in the ways that I would have liked.
I can think of one additional way that President Bush has been “bad” for the country, though I cannot blame him for it. The level of discourse in America has been reduced substantially since President Bush’s election in 2000. In fact, the election itself became the catalyst for this. There are people to this day who fervently believe that the election was stolen, that President Bush is not the properly elected President of the United States of America. To those people I can only say that I’m sorry you believe that, and I wish you all the best, but I can’t talk to you. I just can’t. You believe something that simply isn’t true, and because it is a belief I can’t convince you otherwise.
And this is my point. Much of the hatred of the President is something that cannot be reasoned with, cannot be rationalized, and cannot be truly countered. People just hate the man. Not just his policies, not just the actions he has taken as President. They hate the man himself. I find this sad. Really. Again, is this the President’s fault? No, I don’t think so. But it hasn’t been good for the country, and I’d be foolish to ignore it.
So what’s the final answer? According to my own scorecard, I think that there is no doubt that President Bush has been good for this country. No doubt at all. People who think otherwise are welcome to their opinions, of course. But that’s my answer. Thanks for the question, Bill. I enjoyed this exercise quite a bit.
Q: Jennifer Walden - Which is more difficult? Admitting you have a problem, or doing something about it?
A: Speaking only for myself, I have always found it easier to admit that I have a problem than to do something about it. To be more specific, I find it easier to admit that there IS a problem. My outward hyperactivity notwithstanding, at my core I am a very shy person. I tend to be fairly passive when it comes to most situations. Therefore, I find it pretty easy to recognize problems, but much harder to break the status quo and do something about them. I'm the kind of person who likes to leave well enough alone, and one for whom if a problem isn't beating me upside the head, I tend to just let it slide.
One area where this question is relevant is the field of addiction. The only addiction I have at present is to caffeine. I have been hooked since the summer of 2001. I am a typical addict, in that I know that I can quit (and tell myself that I can quit any time), but don't for a variety of reasons. I'm atypical in that I know that I have a problem, but choose not to do anything about it. I do this because as addictions go, caffeine is a mild one. Physiologically, I know that if I were to quit my body would protest, but I'd eventually get through it with little difficulty.
Speaking more philosophically, knowledge of one’s self is something that many people have a problem with. It’s hard to look into the mirror, ask yourself if something is wrong, and get an honest answer. I have encountered this in my own life, as I'm sure everyone has. Sometimes it is only through the eyes of other people can we truly see ourselves. This is the purpose of things like interventions. Friends and loved ones gather around an addict and force them to confront their problem. In cases such as these, I would argue that doing something is easier than admitting the problem.
So in the end it comes down to the person. What kind of person are you? Ask yourself this question. I think you'll be surprised by the way that your mind wraps itself around it.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Do you seriously think George Bush II was good for this country???
A: Before I actually answer your question, I’d like to discuss the wording of the question itself. Simply reading your question aloud leads me to think that you already know the answer, and that nothing I say is going to convince you one way or another. But I know you, Bill, and I know that you’re a reasonable man (and no, I don’t mean to patronize you). I’ll do my best to convince you that my answer is correct.
Your choice to call President Bush “George Bush II” gives me the chance to discuss something that has been bothering me since the 2000 Presidential campaign. The current President of the United States is named George Walker Bush. He is not “George Bush II”, nor is he “George Bush Jr.” I realize that it seems like a minor thing, but I think it’s important.
In order to properly answer this question I will look at the President’s performance in regards to three large areas that all Presidents must deal with: economics, judges, and national security. I’ll discuss what he has done, and lay it against what I think of his actions. In this way I should be able to come to an answer to your question. Let me preface this by saying that my analysis is by no means complete. There are other areas that Presidents must deal with, and if you’d like me to comment on these, then feel free to ask. I could obviously spend more time on this, but I think I’ve come to a good answer.
First up is economics. While the ultimate responsibility for setting tax rates and budgets belongs to the Congress, the President submits economic proposals for consideration. The economic health of the United States is generally considered to be a good barometer of the performance of a President, and thus I think it’s a good measure of how good a President has been for this country.
So how has the US fared economically during the Bush administration? During the campaign of 2000 the economy was heading into a recession. I specifically remember then-candidate Bush bringing that fact up several times, only to be laughed at and dismissed as trying to talk down the Clinton administration. When President Bush took office in January of 2001, the economy had entered a recession, exactly as he had predicted. The stock market “bubble” had burst, and projected budget surpluses had become actual budget deficits. In short, things were on the decline. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the economy took another major shock. Unemployment climbed, the stock market continued down.
As is usually the case with matters of economics, the current President gets blame (or credit, as the case may be) for the economy that their predecessor leaves behind. In this case, President Bush was immediately tagged with the recession. In the months following 9/11, the President implemented a strategy to reverse the recession. That strategy worked. Therefore, credit for the economic recovery that followed the recession belongs to President Bush. Let me repeat that: President Bush is in large measure responsible for the healthy and strong economy that exists today. He lowered tax rates for all Americans, which put more money into the economy as a whole. He cut capital gains taxes which encouraged investment. The investment led to jobs, which led to lower unemployment, which led to more people making more money. It also led to a surge in the stock markets in America, which created more wealth both for corporations and individuals. In fact, the only area I wish that the President had done a better job with was putting pressure on Congress to lower spending by the federal government.
If you don’t believe me, or think that I’m painting a rosy picture, then ask yourself this: economically, how are you doing? Do you have a job? Does it pay well? Do you own a house? If so, what interest rate are you paying? How are your friends doing? Do they have jobs? Do they own houses? If the economy were doing poorly, would you be able to answer those questions the same way? I didn’t think so. Speaking for myself, economically I’m doing fine. Quite well, in fact. Therefore, I think that President Bush has been very good for this country economically.
Next, let me talk for a brief moment about the judicial branch. One of the ways that a President can leave his mark on the country is in the area of judicial nominations, both to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. I personally think that President Bush has been good for the country in this area. He has nominated highly qualified judges to the federal bench, and his two nominees to the Supreme Court were both excellent men. What I like about his nominees is that they believe that the role of a judge is as an interpreter of laws, not the creator of laws. I share this belief, which is why I think the President has been good for the country in this area.
Finally, let me cover the very broad area of national security. This is the primary purpose of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of all armed forces of the United States. What he says, goes.
On September 11th, 2001, the United States of America was the victim of a terrorist attack. Does President Bush deserve some blame for not preventing this attack? Absolutely. Excuses can be made, of course. He had only been in office for nine months at the time of the attacks. Given the nature of governmental bureaucracy, any policy changes he might have desired did not have time to be implemented. However, there were indications that an attack was coming, and those indications were not handled properly. The President, as I said before, is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him.
In response to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush openly declared war on terrorism. He launched a military campaign to oust some of the organizational structure behind the attacks from the nation of Afghanistan. Was this specific action good for our country? Honestly, I don’t think so. Do I think that 9/11 merited a response? Absolutely. But what that response should have been I am not sure. Do I fault the President for his actions in this area? No, not really. He was under pressure to do something, and overthrowing the Taliban was certainly not the worst thing he could have done. Doing nothing would have been the worst thing. The President understood that, and so he plotted a course of action and followed it. The fact that he did something was good for the country, though again, I would probably have chosen a different course.
Then in April of 2002 the buildup to the eventual War in Iraq began. To set the stage, I’m going to make a number of assertions. If you doubt these, then look them up yourself. I don’t have the time or the patience for an argument.
- Iraq was in violation of 14 separate UN Resolutions in April of 2003.
- The war that had been declared against Iraq in 1991 had never legally ended. Sadaam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire that had been established with the United States by firing at American military planes flying patrols in the no-fly zone over central Iraq.
- There were stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” (consisting primarily of chemical weapons) in Iraq. Those weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria during the year long buildup to the war between April of 2002 and April of 2003.
- There were functional ties between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda (the group behind 9/11). By “functional ties” I do not mean “Iraq was responsible for 9/11”. And by the way, I find it insulting that I even had to type that previous sentence.
- Iraq provided material support to terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.
In April of 2003 the invasion of Iraq began, concluding a few weeks later with the capture of the capital of Baghdad. In the three and a half years that followed, the United States has been fighting to give the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves. This has resulted in the deaths of over 3000 American servicemen, and the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists.
So has this been good for the country? That’s hard to say. I think that the end result of the war (a stable and democratic Iraq) will be good for the country. However, the public face of that war is most certainly not good for this country. The terrorists know this, which is why they continue to stage attacks in Iraq. I use the word "stage" very carefully. They know that by showing American citizens death, American citizens will eventually become tired of it and demand an end to it. It is happening now, and it is definitely not good for the country. So my final verdict on national security is that the President has not been good for the country. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but his actions have not played out in the ways that I would have liked.
I can think of one additional way that President Bush has been “bad” for the country, though I cannot blame him for it. The level of discourse in America has been reduced substantially since President Bush’s election in 2000. In fact, the election itself became the catalyst for this. There are people to this day who fervently believe that the election was stolen, that President Bush is not the properly elected President of the United States of America. To those people I can only say that I’m sorry you believe that, and I wish you all the best, but I can’t talk to you. I just can’t. You believe something that simply isn’t true, and because it is a belief I can’t convince you otherwise.
And this is my point. Much of the hatred of the President is something that cannot be reasoned with, cannot be rationalized, and cannot be truly countered. People just hate the man. Not just his policies, not just the actions he has taken as President. They hate the man himself. I find this sad. Really. Again, is this the President’s fault? No, I don’t think so. But it hasn’t been good for the country, and I’d be foolish to ignore it.
So what’s the final answer? According to my own scorecard, I think that there is no doubt that President Bush has been good for this country. No doubt at all. People who think otherwise are welcome to their opinions, of course. But that’s my answer. Thanks for the question, Bill. I enjoyed this exercise quite a bit.
Q: Jennifer Walden - Which is more difficult? Admitting you have a problem, or doing something about it?
A: Speaking only for myself, I have always found it easier to admit that I have a problem than to do something about it. To be more specific, I find it easier to admit that there IS a problem. My outward hyperactivity notwithstanding, at my core I am a very shy person. I tend to be fairly passive when it comes to most situations. Therefore, I find it pretty easy to recognize problems, but much harder to break the status quo and do something about them. I'm the kind of person who likes to leave well enough alone, and one for whom if a problem isn't beating me upside the head, I tend to just let it slide.
One area where this question is relevant is the field of addiction. The only addiction I have at present is to caffeine. I have been hooked since the summer of 2001. I am a typical addict, in that I know that I can quit (and tell myself that I can quit any time), but don't for a variety of reasons. I'm atypical in that I know that I have a problem, but choose not to do anything about it. I do this because as addictions go, caffeine is a mild one. Physiologically, I know that if I were to quit my body would protest, but I'd eventually get through it with little difficulty.
Speaking more philosophically, knowledge of one’s self is something that many people have a problem with. It’s hard to look into the mirror, ask yourself if something is wrong, and get an honest answer. I have encountered this in my own life, as I'm sure everyone has. Sometimes it is only through the eyes of other people can we truly see ourselves. This is the purpose of things like interventions. Friends and loved ones gather around an addict and force them to confront their problem. In cases such as these, I would argue that doing something is easier than admitting the problem.
So in the end it comes down to the person. What kind of person are you? Ask yourself this question. I think you'll be surprised by the way that your mind wraps itself around it.
Friday, February 2, 2007
20 - Answers (Part 1)
Two of the questions this week require so much contemplation and thought that I'm going to answer them in a separate post (which I've been working on for a couple of days). Just to hold you all over (and because one of the questions is time sensitive), here are the answers to the rest.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Q: Brett Gobe - Earl Grey or Green Tea?
A: I'd have to go with Earl Grey. I'm not really a fan of Green Tea. I like my tea to have a bit of a kick, and green tea just doesn't do it for me.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - will the groundhog see his shadow?
A: Yes. This will result in six more weeks of winter, which could be extended to as many as eight more weeks of winter if he's REALLY spooked by his shadow. Along those lines, I wonder why there isn't a scale to this system? What if he's only slightly scared? Shouldn't that result in only two more weeks of winter? Just a thought.
Q: Adam Barnello - Rent or Buy? AKA, should I buy a house?
A: In my opinion, rent, then buy. Renting is a great way to get a feel for the city in which you live, and also gives you the opportunity to save up some money for a down payment. Once you have enough, I highly recommend buying. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, and you can lock yourself into a good rate. Home ownership is a good investment, so I'd say go for it when you're ready.
Q: Karyn Graves - Serena was pregnant?
A: Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. Now she is no longer pregnant. She is a mother. For those of you who aren't aware, Serena Blackmer gave birth to a baby girl on Monday. The baby's name is "Alexandra Mae Blackmer", and weighed in at 8 pounds 15 ounces. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Blackmer's and wish them all the best with their new daughter. For pictures and more details check out charlieandserena.com.
Q: Bill Jeffers - And when do we get to hear more about this growing up thing? Everyone seems to be doing it lately so I thought I might try it. But if you want to demo it for me that would be great.
A: Let me use the occasion of your question to just ramble a bit, Bill. In the course of typing I think you'll see what I mean by "growing up". If not, then I'll try again later! Oh, and while I'm honored that you'd consider using me as a "demo", I wouldn't recommend it.
Things are a little crazy in my life right now. Work has gone from "really fun" to "not as much fun" in the space of about a month. My group was the victim of a reorganization, and as a result I'm working on things that I never really wanted to work on. Now, I'm still employed, and I still get to work with some really talented people, but unfortunately a lot of the joy (for lack of a better word) has gone out of my job. This is something that has never really applied to me before; I'm one of those fortunate enough to really like what I do for a living. But ever since the reorganization I'm not as happy as I usually am. Am I complaining too much? Yeah, I think so. Do other people have it worse than me? Absolutely. But I have to be honest with myself. This change has me feeling more cynical and disaffected than I normally am, and frankly I don't like it. I know that I need to change my attitude, but actually changing it has proven difficult. Part of my "growing up" is dealing with all aspects of this situation. It's been interesting to say the least.
In addition there is tension in my band lately as well. It basically boils down to everyone in the band being happy with playing shows in and around Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo except for our trumpet player. He has grand aspirations for this band which I do not share. I (and everyone else in the band) am perfectly happy working for a living and playing music as a hobby, while he wants to make a living playing music. This has led to some tense inter-band discussions of late, and I don't see that situation changing. The whole situation has me feeling on edge and nervous, and as with my work changes has taken a lot of the joy out of drumming. In another month I'll begin working on my third album (tentatively titled "I Hope You Didn't Pay Money For This"), and maybe that will turn my attitude around. Who knows?
Finally, recent events in my life and the lives of others have thrown certain things into focus for me. I'm starting to realize that if I wait for my life to settle down then I'll never get anything done, and that I need to decide what it is I want and just go for it. If I worry too much about the consequences, if I continue to second-guess myself, I'm never going to live up to my potential as a human. This may require change. Then again, it might not. I don't know yet. When I figure it out, you'll be the first to know.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
19 - Answers
Q: Bill Jeffers - Are you running for political office anytime soon?
A: I hadn't planned on it. For one thing, I really don't want to dedicate the time and money to the effort of running for public office. For another thing, I haven't lived in any one place in my adult life long enough to feel like I could adequately represent the population of that place. I've been in Rochester for almost 5 years, but I still don't consider myself a "New Yorker".
In addition, I'd make a pretty lousy candidate for public office because I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility. Because of this, my candidacy would consist of my telling people to do things for themselves. That's not the way to win elections. The way to win elections is to tell people that:
1. Your life sucks (and it will get worse if the other guy wins).
2. It's not your fault (it's the other guy's fault).
3. I'll solve your problems by punishing people whom you think are more powerful than you (the other guy).
Quick Tim History: The last time I ran for anything was when I ran for Pep Band President in 2000/2001, and anyone who was around during my administration knows that it wasn't a stellar success. I didn't exactly run the band into the ground, but I certainly wasn't as good of a President as I could have been. There are many reasons for this (and I won't bore you with the details of my personal life), but suffice it to say that the experience taught me some things about holding public office. I would certainly take these lessons with me, but the fact that I held the office makes me take pause when considering taking another.
I guess the real answer to your question is "No", but that's only because you put the qualifier "anytime soon" into the body of the question. Will I ever run for public office? I don't know. Ask me after I die if I did.
Q: Nicole Maloney - New Years resolutions... you have any? Why do people choose a resolution for the "New Year"? What percentage of resolutions are followed through with?
A: I actually did make some New Year's Resolutions this year, though I haven't really thought of them that way. I see these "resolutions" more as lifestyle changes than true resolutions. Still, I guess you could consider them to be New Years' Resolutions, so here they are:
1. Lose Weight: Ah, the most universal of all New Year's Resolutions; I won't win any originality awards, but I've put on some weight over the past few years (between 20 and 30 pounds), and it's time to get rid of it. I bought an exercise bike over the summer, and I've been using it about 2-3 times per week since New Years. I'm also eating less (though still not as little as I should be). Will I be sharing details of my weight loss adventures? Not unless you all are really interested, and I doubt that you are, so I won't waste your time or mine.
2. Finish What I Start: I have a LOT of projects left over from 2006 (and 2005, 2004, etc). These include things like my first NaNoWriMo novel, my third album, organizing my digital life, and setting up my personal finances better. I will be working on these through 2007.
3. Grow Up: This one is a little more personal. I'll get more into this in the coming weeks.
To answer your other questions, I think that people choose resolutions for the "New Year" because the New Year represents new beginnings. It's a chance to leave behind habits of the past and pick up new habits for the future. A chance to start over, as it were. It's an entirely arbitrary thing when you stop and think about it, since the New Year could conceivably fall on any day, but it's still psychologically significant.
And finally, via http://www.proactive-coach.com/resolutions/keeping.htm, here are some statistics on how long people stick with their New Year's resolutions:
- past the first week: 75%
- past 2 weeks: 71%
- after one month: 64%
- after 6 months: 46%
So if you can keep up your resolutions for more than 6 months, then you're doing better than half of humanity. And that's pretty good.
A: I hadn't planned on it. For one thing, I really don't want to dedicate the time and money to the effort of running for public office. For another thing, I haven't lived in any one place in my adult life long enough to feel like I could adequately represent the population of that place. I've been in Rochester for almost 5 years, but I still don't consider myself a "New Yorker".
In addition, I'd make a pretty lousy candidate for public office because I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility. Because of this, my candidacy would consist of my telling people to do things for themselves. That's not the way to win elections. The way to win elections is to tell people that:
1. Your life sucks (and it will get worse if the other guy wins).
2. It's not your fault (it's the other guy's fault).
3. I'll solve your problems by punishing people whom you think are more powerful than you (the other guy).
Quick Tim History: The last time I ran for anything was when I ran for Pep Band President in 2000/2001, and anyone who was around during my administration knows that it wasn't a stellar success. I didn't exactly run the band into the ground, but I certainly wasn't as good of a President as I could have been. There are many reasons for this (and I won't bore you with the details of my personal life), but suffice it to say that the experience taught me some things about holding public office. I would certainly take these lessons with me, but the fact that I held the office makes me take pause when considering taking another.
I guess the real answer to your question is "No", but that's only because you put the qualifier "anytime soon" into the body of the question. Will I ever run for public office? I don't know. Ask me after I die if I did.
Q: Nicole Maloney - New Years resolutions... you have any? Why do people choose a resolution for the "New Year"? What percentage of resolutions are followed through with?
A: I actually did make some New Year's Resolutions this year, though I haven't really thought of them that way. I see these "resolutions" more as lifestyle changes than true resolutions. Still, I guess you could consider them to be New Years' Resolutions, so here they are:
1. Lose Weight: Ah, the most universal of all New Year's Resolutions; I won't win any originality awards, but I've put on some weight over the past few years (between 20 and 30 pounds), and it's time to get rid of it. I bought an exercise bike over the summer, and I've been using it about 2-3 times per week since New Years. I'm also eating less (though still not as little as I should be). Will I be sharing details of my weight loss adventures? Not unless you all are really interested, and I doubt that you are, so I won't waste your time or mine.
2. Finish What I Start: I have a LOT of projects left over from 2006 (and 2005, 2004, etc). These include things like my first NaNoWriMo novel, my third album, organizing my digital life, and setting up my personal finances better. I will be working on these through 2007.
3. Grow Up: This one is a little more personal. I'll get more into this in the coming weeks.
To answer your other questions, I think that people choose resolutions for the "New Year" because the New Year represents new beginnings. It's a chance to leave behind habits of the past and pick up new habits for the future. A chance to start over, as it were. It's an entirely arbitrary thing when you stop and think about it, since the New Year could conceivably fall on any day, but it's still psychologically significant.
And finally, via http://www.proactive-coach.com/resolutions/keeping.htm, here are some statistics on how long people stick with their New Year's resolutions:
- past the first week: 75%
- past 2 weeks: 71%
- after one month: 64%
- after 6 months: 46%
So if you can keep up your resolutions for more than 6 months, then you're doing better than half of humanity. And that's pretty good.
Friday, January 12, 2007
18 - Answers
Q: Karyn Graves - Where did you go?
A: I'll hit this one first, since it gives me the chance to explain my absence. After my last post I went back to NH to visit my parents for Christmas. Then I came back here in time to spend New Years at the Stoffel's (which was a great time, by the way). Since then I've just been trying to keep up with life in general. I have been editing and finishing my novel from this year's NaNoWriMo, playing several shows with my band, and watching Season 5 of 24 as fast as I can in preparation for the new season. In short, I've been busy. Is that an excuse? No, not really. If I'd really wanted to get this done sooner I certainly could have done it. I've been lax, and I'm sorry. I hope my answers to this rather eclectic bunch of questions are worth the wait.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Easy question: Wii or PS3?
A: This is not as easy a question as I thought. Both of these two next generation systems have their advantages and appeals in my mind. The Wii is (relatively) cheap, has the ability to play GameCube games directly as well as a huge library of Nintendo and Sega games through emulation (via an online service), and has a very cool game control interface. The PS3 can play the entire library of PS1 and PS2 games, is fully HD capable, and has the ability to play BluRay movies. Both have extensive online abilities, and both have great games that I would go out and buy immediately if I bought the system (Zelda for the Wii and Resistance for the PS3).
If money were no object (and if I could only get one) I would definitely go with the PS3. I've got a larger library of PS1 and PS2 games, and there are a lot of game families that will be out for the PS3 that I enjoy (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc). However, money is definitely a variable in this equation. The Wii retails for $250, while the PS3 can cost as much as $700. With that in mind, I'd have to say that the Wii is my first choice.
Will I buy either of them right away? No. When my PS2 bites the dust, I'll replace it with a PS3. I probably won't wait for my GameCube to die before buying a Wii to replace it, though I'll most likely wait until the price drops $50 or so. We'll see.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - is Santa real?
A: This is one of the most complicated questions that's ever been posed to me. I'm going to tackle it in three different ways: literal, historical, and esoteric. These interpretations depend on what one means by "Santa". Keep reading and hopefully it'll become clear.
Literal: If by "Santa" you mean the fat, jolly man who lives at the North Pole and runs a massive toy manufacturing and distribution enterprise, then no. He is not real. Sorry. Now, the various men (and some women) who dress up in red suits and play "Santa Claus" are real. In that sense, Santa is real because those people are real. Do they run around on Christmas night delivering toys to the good girls and boys? No, probably not. But they are playing the role of Santa, and thus keeping the idea of Santa alive, and I think that counts for something.
Historical: The figure we know today as "Santa Claus" is based on a real man named Saint Nicholas. Many cultures picked up on this figure and created their own interpretations and legends around him. I won't get too much into detail on this one; click here for a really good Wikipedia article on the origins of Santa. It's pretty complete, and I won't try and top it.
Esoteric: The way I look at it, Santa Claus can be viewed as the spirit of giving in the holiday season (that holiday being Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, or whatever floats your boat). In that more romantic sense, Santa is real as long as people keep giving gifts to one another. Sappy? Yes, and I acknowledge that. But I get pretty sentimental this time of year, so indulge me. As I've grown older, the real meaning of Christmas has changed for me. It's no longer just about toys and presents. It's about family and giving. I take a lot of joy in giving presents to my friends and loved ones.
Final answer: Yes. Santa is real.
Q: Karyn Graves - How likely is it that there was just one mouse in the house (that we already caught), and so we can put the traps away now? (or should we do some other work to prevent any further occurences?)
A: It's been three weeks since you asked me this question. If you haven't seen any mice since then, I think it's likely that the mouse you caught was acting alone. It's always possible that it wasn't, however. I would keep traps out for another couple of weeks just to be sure. As far as preventing further occurences, you should keep all doors and windows firmly shut to prevent more mice from getting inside. You should also remove incentives for them to be in your house in the first place. Don't leave food lying around, clean up crumbs, etc.
Q: Brett Gobe - Tupac or Big E Smalls?
A: It should be perfectly obvious that I'm neither. Seriously? I'm not a hip-hop or rap fan at all. If forced to choose, I'd say Tupac because his songs were at least slightly tolerable. Big E Smalls was someone I could never take seriously. I heard that he was somewhat of a philanthropist, and if that's the case then that's a good thing, but he still wrote and recorded bad music.
A: I'll hit this one first, since it gives me the chance to explain my absence. After my last post I went back to NH to visit my parents for Christmas. Then I came back here in time to spend New Years at the Stoffel's (which was a great time, by the way). Since then I've just been trying to keep up with life in general. I have been editing and finishing my novel from this year's NaNoWriMo, playing several shows with my band, and watching Season 5 of 24 as fast as I can in preparation for the new season. In short, I've been busy. Is that an excuse? No, not really. If I'd really wanted to get this done sooner I certainly could have done it. I've been lax, and I'm sorry. I hope my answers to this rather eclectic bunch of questions are worth the wait.
Q: Bill Jeffers - Easy question: Wii or PS3?
A: This is not as easy a question as I thought. Both of these two next generation systems have their advantages and appeals in my mind. The Wii is (relatively) cheap, has the ability to play GameCube games directly as well as a huge library of Nintendo and Sega games through emulation (via an online service), and has a very cool game control interface. The PS3 can play the entire library of PS1 and PS2 games, is fully HD capable, and has the ability to play BluRay movies. Both have extensive online abilities, and both have great games that I would go out and buy immediately if I bought the system (Zelda for the Wii and Resistance for the PS3).
If money were no object (and if I could only get one) I would definitely go with the PS3. I've got a larger library of PS1 and PS2 games, and there are a lot of game families that will be out for the PS3 that I enjoy (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc). However, money is definitely a variable in this equation. The Wii retails for $250, while the PS3 can cost as much as $700. With that in mind, I'd have to say that the Wii is my first choice.
Will I buy either of them right away? No. When my PS2 bites the dust, I'll replace it with a PS3. I probably won't wait for my GameCube to die before buying a Wii to replace it, though I'll most likely wait until the price drops $50 or so. We'll see.
Q: Lisa Jeffers - is Santa real?
A: This is one of the most complicated questions that's ever been posed to me. I'm going to tackle it in three different ways: literal, historical, and esoteric. These interpretations depend on what one means by "Santa". Keep reading and hopefully it'll become clear.
Literal: If by "Santa" you mean the fat, jolly man who lives at the North Pole and runs a massive toy manufacturing and distribution enterprise, then no. He is not real. Sorry. Now, the various men (and some women) who dress up in red suits and play "Santa Claus" are real. In that sense, Santa is real because those people are real. Do they run around on Christmas night delivering toys to the good girls and boys? No, probably not. But they are playing the role of Santa, and thus keeping the idea of Santa alive, and I think that counts for something.
Historical: The figure we know today as "Santa Claus" is based on a real man named Saint Nicholas. Many cultures picked up on this figure and created their own interpretations and legends around him. I won't get too much into detail on this one; click here for a really good Wikipedia article on the origins of Santa. It's pretty complete, and I won't try and top it.
Esoteric: The way I look at it, Santa Claus can be viewed as the spirit of giving in the holiday season (that holiday being Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, or whatever floats your boat). In that more romantic sense, Santa is real as long as people keep giving gifts to one another. Sappy? Yes, and I acknowledge that. But I get pretty sentimental this time of year, so indulge me. As I've grown older, the real meaning of Christmas has changed for me. It's no longer just about toys and presents. It's about family and giving. I take a lot of joy in giving presents to my friends and loved ones.
Final answer: Yes. Santa is real.
Q: Karyn Graves - How likely is it that there was just one mouse in the house (that we already caught), and so we can put the traps away now? (or should we do some other work to prevent any further occurences?)
A: It's been three weeks since you asked me this question. If you haven't seen any mice since then, I think it's likely that the mouse you caught was acting alone. It's always possible that it wasn't, however. I would keep traps out for another couple of weeks just to be sure. As far as preventing further occurences, you should keep all doors and windows firmly shut to prevent more mice from getting inside. You should also remove incentives for them to be in your house in the first place. Don't leave food lying around, clean up crumbs, etc.
Q: Brett Gobe - Tupac or Big E Smalls?
A: It should be perfectly obvious that I'm neither. Seriously? I'm not a hip-hop or rap fan at all. If forced to choose, I'd say Tupac because his songs were at least slightly tolerable. Big E Smalls was someone I could never take seriously. I heard that he was somewhat of a philanthropist, and if that's the case then that's a good thing, but he still wrote and recorded bad music.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
17 - Answers
Q: Kevin Graves - Why hasn't anyone asked a Mitssob question yet?
A: In considering this question, a number of possible answers come to mind:
1. There are no more questions left to ask.
2. Ron has been deleting the questions before I get a chance to answer them.
3. People are very busy during this holiday season and don't have time to ask questions.
4. People don't have any questions to ask right now.
5. My answers have been so unhelpful that people have given up on me.
Well option 1 is pretty unlikely. As long as humanity exists there will be questions. Similarly, option 2 is pretty improbable (unless the conspiracy goes far deeper than I suspected).
I tend to think that it's a combination of options three and four. The holidays tend to throw people into a frenzy of activity, and therefore it's natural that they wouldn't want to spend the time asking me questions. In addition, I've been pretty slow in answering questions lately due to my own hectic schedule. Therefore people are possibly holding their questions back until things calm down again.
As a writer I'm sensitive to option 5, which is why I included it as a possibility. I'd like to think that this feature has been at least somewhat funny and enlightening, but if that's not the case then I'll do my best to improve it. Just keep the questions coming, Jolinko! I look forward to the chance to provide a few laughs and maybe even some deep thoughts.
A: In considering this question, a number of possible answers come to mind:
1. There are no more questions left to ask.
2. Ron has been deleting the questions before I get a chance to answer them.
3. People are very busy during this holiday season and don't have time to ask questions.
4. People don't have any questions to ask right now.
5. My answers have been so unhelpful that people have given up on me.
Well option 1 is pretty unlikely. As long as humanity exists there will be questions. Similarly, option 2 is pretty improbable (unless the conspiracy goes far deeper than I suspected).
I tend to think that it's a combination of options three and four. The holidays tend to throw people into a frenzy of activity, and therefore it's natural that they wouldn't want to spend the time asking me questions. In addition, I've been pretty slow in answering questions lately due to my own hectic schedule. Therefore people are possibly holding their questions back until things calm down again.
As a writer I'm sensitive to option 5, which is why I included it as a possibility. I'd like to think that this feature has been at least somewhat funny and enlightening, but if that's not the case then I'll do my best to improve it. Just keep the questions coming, Jolinko! I look forward to the chance to provide a few laughs and maybe even some deep thoughts.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
16 - Answers
First, a quick apology. I spent the last two weeks finishing up my NaNoWriMo submission, which took up the majority of my free time. I managed to write about 16000 words in 5 days in order to get to the required 50,000. Because of that, I had to forgo the Ask Mitssob, and I'm sorry for not giving prior warning.
Without further ado...
Q: Bill Jeffers - What is the studly underwear choice? Boxers? Briefs? Boxerbriefs? Manthong?
A: Again with questions about clothes. I should open a fashion column or something. In any event, let me think about this. Even though I'm not a stud, I do wear underwear, so I'll use myself as an example to start. I wore briefs for a very long time (no, not the same briefs), and switched to boxers my graduate year of college. I would have to say that boxers are much more comfortable, and I'll stick with them for now. I have never worn boxerbriefs or a manthong; the former would be acceptable to me, the later too horrifying to contemplate.
Now, for the "studly" part of your question. In order to properly answer this question I'd have to consult a female, since I am not homosexual and thus do not find men to be "studly". If I had to choose underwear that would make ME feel studly, I'd have to go with boxers. The choice that sounds the studliest is the manthong. In my opinion it takes a special kind of man to wear a manthong. I am not that man. Are you? Let me know.
Q: Brett Gobe - Crosby, Stills and Nash or Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young?
A: Since I really like the music of Neil Young, I would have to go with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
Q: Adam Barnello - Why does Bill keep asking questions about clothes?
A: I have a couple of theories about this. The first is that he misses his days at Tuxedo Junction. Perhaps he feels like he has unfinished business there. I don't know.
The second is that he is secretly fantasizing about me wearing the clothes that he's asking about. And since this includes the infamous manthong, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Without further ado...
Q: Bill Jeffers - What is the studly underwear choice? Boxers? Briefs? Boxerbriefs? Manthong?
A: Again with questions about clothes. I should open a fashion column or something. In any event, let me think about this. Even though I'm not a stud, I do wear underwear, so I'll use myself as an example to start. I wore briefs for a very long time (no, not the same briefs), and switched to boxers my graduate year of college. I would have to say that boxers are much more comfortable, and I'll stick with them for now. I have never worn boxerbriefs or a manthong; the former would be acceptable to me, the later too horrifying to contemplate.
Now, for the "studly" part of your question. In order to properly answer this question I'd have to consult a female, since I am not homosexual and thus do not find men to be "studly". If I had to choose underwear that would make ME feel studly, I'd have to go with boxers. The choice that sounds the studliest is the manthong. In my opinion it takes a special kind of man to wear a manthong. I am not that man. Are you? Let me know.
Q: Brett Gobe - Crosby, Stills and Nash or Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young?
A: Since I really like the music of Neil Young, I would have to go with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
Q: Adam Barnello - Why does Bill keep asking questions about clothes?
A: I have a couple of theories about this. The first is that he misses his days at Tuxedo Junction. Perhaps he feels like he has unfinished business there. I don't know.
The second is that he is secretly fantasizing about me wearing the clothes that he's asking about. And since this includes the infamous manthong, well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)