Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Cage Jousting

I haven't been making any entries recently, which is attributable to nothing but laziness. I have more downtime both at work and in the evenings than ever before. I still don't feel like writing. Rather, I will be periodically transferring old entries on Facebook onto this medium; taking credit twice for something I wrote once. During a conversation with Jason, Thunderdome was referenced. It reminded me of this little diddy from my senior year of college. Enjoy:

In April we were sitting in Game Theory and learning about bidding. Apparently there is no good way to assign payoffs to two bidders who tie for the highest bid, so each person has their payoffs divided by two in mathematical solutions. I find this unacceptable. I first suggested Cage Match to determine winner, and then decided that jousting would be a better method. Five minutes later, I stumbled upon the most baller way ever to determine who wins: cage jousting. I then spent the day's lecture writing rules for game. The scenario we were discussing was bidding for tulips. Earlier today I found the notebook I recorded the rules in, and need to electronically record them before the notes go into a burn pile:

Rules for Cage Jousting

1. Two men enter, 1 exits.
2. Horses are not considered men.
3. Two horses enter.
4. 2, 1, or none horses exit.
5. Men must remain on horses: floor fighting off-limits.
6. It's not fair to knock another man's horse off-balance to get him on the ground.
7. If another man is aiming at your horse, he is not aiming for you. Hence, you have a free shot. If you cannot succeed in knocking him off, you suck.
8. If joust ends in tie, winning horse receives tulip.
9. .95 chance if you aim at horse, horse will eat you.
10. This .95 chance being eaten, combined with danger of leaving yourself open, makes aiming at horse very stupid.
11. Only Chuck Norris would aim at horse.
12. Chuck Norris does not lose cage joust.
13. This is strictly hypothetical - Chuck Norris would never bid for tulips.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Solutions for Americans, for America

This weekend I learned about the cottage industry of ‘day’ and ‘sleep away’ camp. For those of you growing up in real America and requiring a quick primer, ‘day camp’ is where you send children for the day, then pick them up in the evening. ‘Sleep away camp,’ however, entails actually going somewhere else and sleeping overnight. Both industries (if they can be bifurcated) are apparently built around the premise that rich parents need something to do with their kids during the summer.

I think I can do some good for this country by blowing up this entire structure. Back in real America, if you’re 12 and it’s summer, you find your ass a job. There’s no excuse for being in junior high and not knowing how to at least operate a grain cart. So we take all these privileged children, and put them to work picking strawberries and melons in fields across the country. We would boost the economy and help Long Island be a little less of a joke in the process.

The economic boost would be immediate. Picking jobs are available, Americans just aren’t willing to do them – which is why we have to import our labor. These children would be taking jobs from migrant workers that typically send a large portion of their wages back home through remittances. Instead of that money going to Mexico and the Dominican Republic, it stays here to be spent on Ralph Lauren shirts that, though manufactured in Vietnam, are sold in American malls.

The bigger benefit, however, is that Long Island gets its shit in order. The place is seriously an embarrassment. The kids it produces need to learn what it’s like to work for something. Floating this idea over the weekend, I was told the kids would just refuse to work. Good. Then they don’t eat. Maybe they’ll starve. One more problem solved. Bitter end.

Friday, August 5, 2011

(How To) Teach the Controversy

If I were a biology teacher in Louisiana, Texas, Kansas, et cetera and asked to teach creationism, I would reply that I am a science teacher. Given my loathe for science, I don’t see how this would ever be a scenario, but that would still be my reply. If the response was that I was expected to ‘teach the controversy,’ I would accept the demand without any argument.

At some point in the year we would have a class based on psychology and people’s mental needs. We would cover the urge to explain things regardless of tangible evidence supporting the explanations, with supernatural beings traditionally held responsible for most events that societies had no control over. Next we’d hit the fact that likelihood of survival is increased if one is more willing to follow the group, giving rise to the fallacy of the appeal to popularity and resistance to questioning one’s institutions. The final 60 seconds would go: people traditionally turned to religion to explain things, and the Judeo-Christian background of your ancestors used the Adam and Eve story to explain how people came to be. People were afraid to challenge this because society has never treated questioning scientists very well – particularly when the questions challenge the authority of the church. As such, the controversy prevents more serious scientific discussion. Later on, some people figured this’d be a great thing to politicize and develop into a wedge issue. In short, people are closed minded and opposed to whatever the church campaigns against. Republican strategists manipulate this in an effective manner, well aware that in the midst of adversity voters really do cling to their guns and religion. You have now been taught the controversy. Enjoy your weekend kids!

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Big News

As of Monday I've officially relocated to Center Square, which is within walking distance of both work and 75% of the bars in the city. It's the 2nd and 3rd floors of an apartment (to be shared with a couple work mates) with a pretty nice kitchen and all the storage room you could ever ask for. I mean you could hide dead hookers galore in all the closet space we've been provided. But bigger than this news was today's unveiling of the logo for next year's All-Star Game:

I hate the fact I've yet to see the renovated Kauffman Stadium (albeit the changes don't sound too impressive), but apparently some good has come out of it. I hate that, as Royal fans, we're always relegated to looking to the future instead of enjoying the present, but 2012 looks to be shaping up as an excellent year for KC.