ARE YOU REALLY MORE LIKELY TO BUY THE PRODUCT IF IT COSTS $19.99 RATHER THAN $20.00?
IS YOUR BABY CUTER THAN ALL THE OTHER BABIES IN THE NURSERY OR DO THEY REALLY ALL LOOK ABOUT THE SAME?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN CALL YOURSELF A HUMANE ANIMAL LOVER AND STILL EAT HAMBURGERS, LOBSTER AND PHEASANT BECAUSE THEY TASTE GOOD?
IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS OF RECEIVING UNEMPLOY- MENT BENEFITS, ARE YOU REALLY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB?
DO YOU REALLY NEVER POSE NUDE IN FRONT OF THE BATHROOM MIRROR?
WHEN YOU'RE EATING DINNER AT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME, IS IT REALLY THE BEST MEAL YOU'VE HAD ALL YEAR?
DO YOU REALLY MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU IMPLY TO YOUR FRIENDS THAT YOU DO?
IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, WOULD YOU REALLY DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?
WHENEVER SOMEONE ASKS YOU HOW YOU'RE DOING, ARE YOU REALLY ALWAYS FINE?
ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO RETURN THAT $100 YOU FOUND IN THAT WALLET TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER?
AREN'T YOU REALLY BEING A VOYEUR WHEN YOU ENJOY SEX SCENES IN THE MOVIES THE WAY YOU DO?
ARE YOU REALLY ALWAYS THINKING OF THE PERSON YOU'RE HAVING SEX WITH?
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE?
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CAMPAIGNING POLITICIAN YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR ALWAYS TOLD THE TRUTH?
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOUR DOCTOR KNOWS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO EVERY MEDICAL QUESTION YOU ASK?
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU KNOW IT IN YOUR GUT?
WHEN YOU'RE STOPPED BY A COP, WERE YOU REALLY NOT SPEEDING?
ARE YOU REALLY 39?
DO YOU REALLY CARE WHETHER THAT GUY ACROSS TOWN HAS HEALTH INSURANCE?
IF YOU WERE SENTENCED TO DEATH, WOULD YOU STILL REALLY BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY?
DO YOU REALLY THINK ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT?
DO YOU REALLY THINK IT ALL EVENS OUT IN THE END?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
THE DUI CHARADE
In all states, at a certain age, you are allowed to:
get married
get divorced
have children
have an abortion
drive a car
drive a boat
buy cigarettes
risk your life in the military
enter into legally binding business contracts
but you are not old enough to.......buy a Coors Light.
The age? 18 (in fact, in most states, you can't purchase a beer or any alcohol and drink it in public until age 21).
Absurd!
The prime argument made for the mimum alcohol laws is that youngsters don't have the good judgment not to drink and drive. DUI's involving teenagers are increasing. According to all statistics, however, adults don't have any better judgment, and so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol either. But that was Prohibition and we rightly repealed that law.
Here's the real problem, and it applies to drivers of all ages. In the state I live in, there is a song-and-dance act regarding DUI violations:
A DUI ticket is given, a lawyer is hired for a few thousand dollars, a court date is set, the charges are dropped to a lesser offense, punishment is set at loss of driving privileges for a period of time, a fine payable to the court, some hours of community service and a psychological evaluation. Often, with a clean record, the offender's loss of license period is shortened and the whole matter is expunged.
Who gains from this little play? The lawyers (fees), the courts (fines), the judges and those who work in the courts (jobs). We, the public? No. DUI is very serious and dangerous offense. But according to all statistics, the little scripted play acting does little, if anything, to lessen underage drinking, driving under the influence, or danger to the community.
Possible solution: confiscate the automobile used in the DUI incident for two or three months (longer based on the offender's record), whether it belongs to the DUI offender or not (unless it was reported stolen), whether it is used in a business or not, whether it is the only car the family has or not. Store it in a police pond. No exceptions. Perhaps...hopefully...that will put enough pressure on parents, friends and others to keep automobiles out of the hands of those who are drinking (it will at least keep that automobile out of their hands). Perhaps the drinkers will get the message themselves. A sobering thought.
And we'll all be better off for it.
get married
get divorced
have children
have an abortion
drive a car
drive a boat
buy cigarettes
risk your life in the military
enter into legally binding business contracts
but you are not old enough to.......buy a Coors Light.
The age? 18 (in fact, in most states, you can't purchase a beer or any alcohol and drink it in public until age 21).
Absurd!
The prime argument made for the mimum alcohol laws is that youngsters don't have the good judgment not to drink and drive. DUI's involving teenagers are increasing. According to all statistics, however, adults don't have any better judgment, and so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol either. But that was Prohibition and we rightly repealed that law.
Here's the real problem, and it applies to drivers of all ages. In the state I live in, there is a song-and-dance act regarding DUI violations:
A DUI ticket is given, a lawyer is hired for a few thousand dollars, a court date is set, the charges are dropped to a lesser offense, punishment is set at loss of driving privileges for a period of time, a fine payable to the court, some hours of community service and a psychological evaluation. Often, with a clean record, the offender's loss of license period is shortened and the whole matter is expunged.
Who gains from this little play? The lawyers (fees), the courts (fines), the judges and those who work in the courts (jobs). We, the public? No. DUI is very serious and dangerous offense. But according to all statistics, the little scripted play acting does little, if anything, to lessen underage drinking, driving under the influence, or danger to the community.
Possible solution: confiscate the automobile used in the DUI incident for two or three months (longer based on the offender's record), whether it belongs to the DUI offender or not (unless it was reported stolen), whether it is used in a business or not, whether it is the only car the family has or not. Store it in a police pond. No exceptions. Perhaps...hopefully...that will put enough pressure on parents, friends and others to keep automobiles out of the hands of those who are drinking (it will at least keep that automobile out of their hands). Perhaps the drinkers will get the message themselves. A sobering thought.
And we'll all be better off for it.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
START THE RACE
The breakdown of the human species into races has varied significantly from Biblical times to the present and in different countries of the world. The concept of race unites groups of people based on physical characteristics, place of origin, cultural customs, etc.
The question arises: What is the race of an offspring of a mixed racial union who exhibits some characteristics of each parental race?
For example: iIs it appropriate to refer to the child of one black and one white parent as black? Remember, the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse is not a donkey or a horse but a mule.
Interracial marriages occur with increasing frequency, and it is time to establish new race classifications appropriate to modern times. Accepting today's popular delineation of four races...caucasian, black, asian, indian...here are my recommended new races:
BLACAUC...offspring of a black and a caucasian
INDCAUC...offspring of an indian and a caucasian
ASCAUC...offspring of an asian and a caucasian
INDBLAC...offspring of an indian and a black
ASBLAC...offspring of an asian and a black
INDIAS...offspring of an indian and anasian
BLACIND...offspring of a blacauc and an indauc
BLACAS...offspring of a blacauc and an ascauc
BLACBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an indblac
CAUCBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an asblac
BLIAS...offspring of a blacauc and an indias
ASIND..offspring of an indcauc and an ascauc
INDIND...offspring of an indcauc and an indblac
INDLAC...offspring of an indauc and an asblac
ININ...offspring of an indauc and an indias
CAUCLAC...offspring of an ascauc and an indblac
ASBAS...offspring of an ascauc and anasblac
CAUCDIAS...offspring of an ascauc and an indias
ASBLIND...offspring of an indblac and an asblac
IASBLAC...offspring of an indblac and an indias
ASDIAS...offspring of an asblac and an indias
There you have it...simple, clear, logical...finally!
The question arises: What is the race of an offspring of a mixed racial union who exhibits some characteristics of each parental race?
For example: iIs it appropriate to refer to the child of one black and one white parent as black? Remember, the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse is not a donkey or a horse but a mule.
Interracial marriages occur with increasing frequency, and it is time to establish new race classifications appropriate to modern times. Accepting today's popular delineation of four races...caucasian, black, asian, indian...here are my recommended new races:
BLACAUC...offspring of a black and a caucasian
INDCAUC...offspring of an indian and a caucasian
ASCAUC...offspring of an asian and a caucasian
INDBLAC...offspring of an indian and a black
ASBLAC...offspring of an asian and a black
INDIAS...offspring of an indian and anasian
BLACIND...offspring of a blacauc and an indauc
BLACAS...offspring of a blacauc and an ascauc
BLACBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an indblac
CAUCBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an asblac
BLIAS...offspring of a blacauc and an indias
ASIND..offspring of an indcauc and an ascauc
INDIND...offspring of an indcauc and an indblac
INDLAC...offspring of an indauc and an asblac
ININ...offspring of an indauc and an indias
CAUCLAC...offspring of an ascauc and an indblac
ASBAS...offspring of an ascauc and anasblac
CAUCDIAS...offspring of an ascauc and an indias
ASBLIND...offspring of an indblac and an asblac
IASBLAC...offspring of an indblac and an indias
ASDIAS...offspring of an asblac and an indias
There you have it...simple, clear, logical...finally!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
BASEBALL, YER OUT!
Baseball is our national pastime, but it has three strikes against it and you know about three strikes
STRIKE ONE: BALLPARKS HAVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS
Since a team plays half its games in its iwn home ballpark, its dimensions can make quite a difference in its won-lost record, in a ballplayer's batting and fielding averages, pitching record, paycheck, the winning of Cy Young and MVP awards, and the prospects of being voted into the Hall of Fame. Comparing the records of players who play in different ballparks is meaningless, invalid, absurd..
A ball hit 315 feet down the right field line in New York's Yankee Stadium or San Francisco's AT&T Park is a home run, but a ball hit 40 feet further back in Chicago's Wrigley Field is a lazy fly ball and a probable out. Want to compare the record of sluggers who play in those two ballparks? Or of pitchers who pitch in those two parks?
A line drive to left field that would reach the stands for a home run in most ballparks would ricochet off the Green Monster in Boston's Fenway Park -- a 37 foot high wall that sits atop its left field fence a short 310 feet away -- and bounce harmlessly back onto the playing field for a single or double.
Some parks are domed and protected from weather, others aren't. Some ballfields have artificial grass that speeds up ground balls, others have natural grass that slow up the ball. Different parks have different amounts of foul territory behind home plate and down the foul lines. A team's fortunes have been known to rise and fall with the rise and fall of its pitching mound.
Baseball is the only professional sport whose playing fields have such differences in its dimensions.
STRKE TWO: ARBITRARY AWARDING OF WINS/LOSSES TO PITCHERS
A win is awarded to the pitcher who was the pitcher of record when the team went ahead in the game and stayed ahead (starting pitchers must pitch 5 innings too get the win). That arbitrary rule can and frequently does produce an absurd result, such as this:
The starting pitcher for the home team pitches a beautiful game, and leaves the game in the 9th inning with his team ahead 10-0. A relief pitcher comes in and gives up 11 runs, to make the score 11-10 in favor of the visiting team. The home team then scores two runs in the bottom of the ninth to win the game 12-11.
The winning pitcher under today's rules? The relief pitcher, who pitched atrociously, and not the starting pitcher, who pitched masterfully! The charging of losses to pitchers have similar problems.
Simple solution. Have the game's official scorer award the win to the pitcher he or she believes most contributed to the win, the way the official scorer rules whether a batter reached base by getting a hit or on an error. Might there be a game when a team wins, all of its pitchers pitched poorly and no one is awarded the coveted win? Sure, and deservedly so.
STRIKE THREE: IT AIN'T A WORLD SERIES
Each baseball season wraps up with the playoffs and their shining highlight, the World Series. Problem is, the world is not invited. The only teams invited are 27 teams from the U.S. and one each from Toronto and Montreal. Professional teams in Europe, Asia, South America, the Caribbean and other parts of the world are ignored. Think of what we Americans would be saying if there were a World Football Series and U.S. teams were shunned.
Solution? Give the World Series a new name, like the North American Series (which it is), or the Grand Series or some other such name...or, leave the name as it is and legitimatize it by inviting the world. Sure, there was a time, 100 years ago, when professional baseball was only played in the U.S. and the name World Series was appropriate, but 'taint so anymore.
Our national pastime needs serious fixin'.
STRIKE ONE: BALLPARKS HAVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS
Since a team plays half its games in its iwn home ballpark, its dimensions can make quite a difference in its won-lost record, in a ballplayer's batting and fielding averages, pitching record, paycheck, the winning of Cy Young and MVP awards, and the prospects of being voted into the Hall of Fame. Comparing the records of players who play in different ballparks is meaningless, invalid, absurd..
A ball hit 315 feet down the right field line in New York's Yankee Stadium or San Francisco's AT&T Park is a home run, but a ball hit 40 feet further back in Chicago's Wrigley Field is a lazy fly ball and a probable out. Want to compare the record of sluggers who play in those two ballparks? Or of pitchers who pitch in those two parks?
A line drive to left field that would reach the stands for a home run in most ballparks would ricochet off the Green Monster in Boston's Fenway Park -- a 37 foot high wall that sits atop its left field fence a short 310 feet away -- and bounce harmlessly back onto the playing field for a single or double.
Some parks are domed and protected from weather, others aren't. Some ballfields have artificial grass that speeds up ground balls, others have natural grass that slow up the ball. Different parks have different amounts of foul territory behind home plate and down the foul lines. A team's fortunes have been known to rise and fall with the rise and fall of its pitching mound.
Baseball is the only professional sport whose playing fields have such differences in its dimensions.
STRKE TWO: ARBITRARY AWARDING OF WINS/LOSSES TO PITCHERS
A win is awarded to the pitcher who was the pitcher of record when the team went ahead in the game and stayed ahead (starting pitchers must pitch 5 innings too get the win). That arbitrary rule can and frequently does produce an absurd result, such as this:
The starting pitcher for the home team pitches a beautiful game, and leaves the game in the 9th inning with his team ahead 10-0. A relief pitcher comes in and gives up 11 runs, to make the score 11-10 in favor of the visiting team. The home team then scores two runs in the bottom of the ninth to win the game 12-11.
The winning pitcher under today's rules? The relief pitcher, who pitched atrociously, and not the starting pitcher, who pitched masterfully! The charging of losses to pitchers have similar problems.
Simple solution. Have the game's official scorer award the win to the pitcher he or she believes most contributed to the win, the way the official scorer rules whether a batter reached base by getting a hit or on an error. Might there be a game when a team wins, all of its pitchers pitched poorly and no one is awarded the coveted win? Sure, and deservedly so.
STRIKE THREE: IT AIN'T A WORLD SERIES
Each baseball season wraps up with the playoffs and their shining highlight, the World Series. Problem is, the world is not invited. The only teams invited are 27 teams from the U.S. and one each from Toronto and Montreal. Professional teams in Europe, Asia, South America, the Caribbean and other parts of the world are ignored. Think of what we Americans would be saying if there were a World Football Series and U.S. teams were shunned.
Solution? Give the World Series a new name, like the North American Series (which it is), or the Grand Series or some other such name...or, leave the name as it is and legitimatize it by inviting the world. Sure, there was a time, 100 years ago, when professional baseball was only played in the U.S. and the name World Series was appropriate, but 'taint so anymore.
Our national pastime needs serious fixin'.
BEFUDDLING
To me, the human mind is at once the most wondrous, fascinating and befuddling part of our being. Wondrous because of its enormous capabilities, fascinating because of its as yet untapped potentials, and befuddling because it has strange attitudes and beliefs about itself.
For example: We can often be heard to say, "I had to talk myself into it." What in tarnation does that mean? The "I" and the "myself" in that sentence are the same thing, the same you, aren't they? If the "I"s mind already knows or believes or wants something, who or what else is there in the "myseld" that it has to convince? "You" only have one mind, it is the only decision maker in you, and you are already convinced. So who or what exactly are you talking to? Befuddling.
Ever say to yourself (what does that mean?), "I have to give my mind a rest." Shouldn't that more accurately be stated, "This part of the total me needs to shut down this part of the total me because this part of the total me is tired of doing what this part of the total me is designed to do"? Befuddling.
Ever say, "I can't stop thinking about it"? So your mind, which in one way or another, controls everything in your body, is not in total control of itself? Something else is controlling it? What? Befuddling.
And when the mind turns to drugs and alcohol and biofeedback and self-hypnosis and meditation and mantras and yoga and stuff to shut itself partially or totally down, is that aN acknowledge- ment that it prefers at times not to do the job nature intended it to do? Nature intended it to do? Nature, too, has a mind? Befuddling.
Can you ever really not know yourself? Lie to yourself (since you already know the truth)? Not believe you're saying or doing something? Push things out of your mind? Make believe it didn't happen? Close your eyes (eyes?) to the facts? Walk on burning coals and choose not to feel what you're feeling? Not know who you really are? Believe the unbelievable? Erase something from your mind? Turn off your mind (how could you ever choose to turn it back on if it takes an awake mind to make choices)? If you had a brain transplant (they're probably coming), would you be you or would you be he or she? Can you ever really go out of your mind, since you are not in your mind, your mind is in you?
Mind-boggling.
For example: We can often be heard to say, "I had to talk myself into it." What in tarnation does that mean? The "I" and the "myself" in that sentence are the same thing, the same you, aren't they? If the "I"s mind already knows or believes or wants something, who or what else is there in the "myseld" that it has to convince? "You" only have one mind, it is the only decision maker in you, and you are already convinced. So who or what exactly are you talking to? Befuddling.
Ever say to yourself (what does that mean?), "I have to give my mind a rest." Shouldn't that more accurately be stated, "This part of the total me needs to shut down this part of the total me because this part of the total me is tired of doing what this part of the total me is designed to do"? Befuddling.
Ever say, "I can't stop thinking about it"? So your mind, which in one way or another, controls everything in your body, is not in total control of itself? Something else is controlling it? What? Befuddling.
And when the mind turns to drugs and alcohol and biofeedback and self-hypnosis and meditation and mantras and yoga and stuff to shut itself partially or totally down, is that aN acknowledge- ment that it prefers at times not to do the job nature intended it to do? Nature intended it to do? Nature, too, has a mind? Befuddling.
Can you ever really not know yourself? Lie to yourself (since you already know the truth)? Not believe you're saying or doing something? Push things out of your mind? Make believe it didn't happen? Close your eyes (eyes?) to the facts? Walk on burning coals and choose not to feel what you're feeling? Not know who you really are? Believe the unbelievable? Erase something from your mind? Turn off your mind (how could you ever choose to turn it back on if it takes an awake mind to make choices)? If you had a brain transplant (they're probably coming), would you be you or would you be he or she? Can you ever really go out of your mind, since you are not in your mind, your mind is in you?
Mind-boggling.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
AND THE ZIT AWARD GOES TO...
When President "Obama denounced the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department for stupidity--
one of the department's officers, Sergeant James Crowley, while investigating a possible break-in, arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct for being belligerent, refusing to show identification and cooperate with the police, and after repeatedly accusing the Sergeant of racism (the sergeant is white, the Professor is black)--
he made the following logical errors:
1. When the President acknowledged he made his comments without having all the evidence, he acting irrationally by basing his comments on subjective feelings rather than objective facts;
2. When the President admitted he was biased in his judgment of the incident because the Professor was a friend, he sought to include bias as an element of fairness and justitce;
3. When the President impliedly brought the issue of racism into the arrest, he made the syncretic error of relating two facts (there is racism in America, and there was this incident) that were not proven to be related to each other;
4. When the President implied that racism motivated the Sergeant's actions, he assumed a cause and effect relationship that didn't necessarily exist;
5. When the President invoked the spectre of racism, based solely on the fact that some police officers may be racist, he committed the error of generalization (what's true of some members of a group is true for all members of the group)...ironically, the logical error inherent in racism;
6. When the President denigrated the police for arresting "a middle-aged man with a cane," he sought to evoke sympathy by bringing up irrelevancies, and either showed historical ignorance or was guilty of attempted deception.
For all of the above reasons, President Obama is awarded the first ZIT Award for being guilty of the most Zany Illogical Thinking of the week.
one of the department's officers, Sergeant James Crowley, while investigating a possible break-in, arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct for being belligerent, refusing to show identification and cooperate with the police, and after repeatedly accusing the Sergeant of racism (the sergeant is white, the Professor is black)--
he made the following logical errors:
1. When the President acknowledged he made his comments without having all the evidence, he acting irrationally by basing his comments on subjective feelings rather than objective facts;
2. When the President admitted he was biased in his judgment of the incident because the Professor was a friend, he sought to include bias as an element of fairness and justitce;
3. When the President impliedly brought the issue of racism into the arrest, he made the syncretic error of relating two facts (there is racism in America, and there was this incident) that were not proven to be related to each other;
4. When the President implied that racism motivated the Sergeant's actions, he assumed a cause and effect relationship that didn't necessarily exist;
5. When the President invoked the spectre of racism, based solely on the fact that some police officers may be racist, he committed the error of generalization (what's true of some members of a group is true for all members of the group)...ironically, the logical error inherent in racism;
6. When the President denigrated the police for arresting "a middle-aged man with a cane," he sought to evoke sympathy by bringing up irrelevancies, and either showed historical ignorance or was guilty of attempted deception.
For all of the above reasons, President Obama is awarded the first ZIT Award for being guilty of the most Zany Illogical Thinking of the week.
Friday, July 24, 2009
RING IN THE NEWS
I have always been curious as to why married people wear wedding rings. It seemS a strange custom. I understand that years and years ago, it symbolized a commitment to marital fidelity, and in some countries the value of the ring represented a monetary endowment. Today, I think, it is used more as an announcement... that the wearer is taken, maritally and sexually speaking.
But since probably less than 1/100th of 1% of the people you meet have any pressing need or desire to know if you are sexually available, and since there is the far less costly invention of language to convey that tidbit of information, what is the purpose of making the announcement?
But this post is not arguing for the abolition of wedding rings. Quite the contrary. If the purpose of wearing a ring is to reveal something important about yourself that others ought know, then I propose we each, married or not, wear ten rings, one on each finger, to announce the following with indicated specificity:
1. RELIGION (christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, agnostic, atheist)
2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual)
3. DESIRED FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (once daily, once weekly, on holidays only)
4. OCCUPATION (doctor, lawyer, indian chief)
5. FINANCIAL STATUS (rich, poor, somewhere in the middle)
6. AGE (under 40, in prime time, senior, archaic)
7. POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE (capitalist, socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, terrorist)
8. DIETARY HABIT (carnivore, vegetarian, health nut)
9. PRESENT MOOD (serene, anxious, depressed, none of your business)
10. MARITAL STATUS (taken, taken but looking, not taken and desperate)
Yes, those rings will cost a little bit. But think of all the conversation that will be saved by the mere flashing of your dazzling, bejeweled ringed fingers...conversation that likely pollutes the planet more than all the gasoline we spew into the atmosphere.
In another post, I will identify the intriguing information that will be revealed by the ten rings to be worn on your toes.
But since probably less than 1/100th of 1% of the people you meet have any pressing need or desire to know if you are sexually available, and since there is the far less costly invention of language to convey that tidbit of information, what is the purpose of making the announcement?
But this post is not arguing for the abolition of wedding rings. Quite the contrary. If the purpose of wearing a ring is to reveal something important about yourself that others ought know, then I propose we each, married or not, wear ten rings, one on each finger, to announce the following with indicated specificity:
1. RELIGION (christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, agnostic, atheist)
2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual)
3. DESIRED FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (once daily, once weekly, on holidays only)
4. OCCUPATION (doctor, lawyer, indian chief)
5. FINANCIAL STATUS (rich, poor, somewhere in the middle)
6. AGE (under 40, in prime time, senior, archaic)
7. POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE (capitalist, socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, terrorist)
8. DIETARY HABIT (carnivore, vegetarian, health nut)
9. PRESENT MOOD (serene, anxious, depressed, none of your business)
10. MARITAL STATUS (taken, taken but looking, not taken and desperate)
Yes, those rings will cost a little bit. But think of all the conversation that will be saved by the mere flashing of your dazzling, bejeweled ringed fingers...conversation that likely pollutes the planet more than all the gasoline we spew into the atmosphere.
In another post, I will identify the intriguing information that will be revealed by the ten rings to be worn on your toes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)