Get Rid of Leap Year!

One thing everyone seems to be arguing about lately is our 365 and 1/4 day calendar. It seems we have perfectly aligned our time measures to the trip our planet takes around the sun, except we haven't been very exact about it. Of course, what other options do we have? The Jewish calendar is all based on fasting so no one wants to adopt that--hell, even most Jewish people I know prefer the western calendar and will tell you it's 2011 rather than 5772. And don't get me started on the Chinese calendar, with their tigers and monkeys and rats oh my. So it's really just a matter of figuring out how to improve our own.

See, that extra 1/4 day each year means having to invent a whole new day--February 29--every four years. The way to remember which year gets the extra day is that it lands on Summer Olympics and U.S. presidential elections, but if you hate sports and aren't an American you're out of luck. But who wants that extra day in February, anyway? It'll be cold and mucky and make spring just a day further!

I propose instead we take that extra 24 hours and break it up to 6 hours for each of the four years it applies to. Then, break the 6 hours down into 30 minutes each month of each year, and for each of these months we can 7 minutes and thirty seconds to each of that month's four Mondays, to be used as extra snooze time when waking up because Mondays are such hard days to wake up to after a long weekend. Everyone will be happier with the extra minutes of sleep each Monday, and then we'll have more brotherhood, fewer wars, and maybe better rested scientists who can cure global hunger.

And don't start giving me crap about how some months don't have four Mondays. We're solving global hunger here, people.

Tales of the Loaner Car

So while the car is being serviced I'm using a loaner for a couple days, and it is quickly apparent that the loaner is a much newer model than my own car. It has some improvements--such as keyless ignition for those of us who can't get enough of push buttons--and some drawbacks, such as lack of a door-rest for my left elbow that I had taken for granted over the years. But this morning's drive taught me of a new space-age feature that still has me scratching my head.

Picture it, I-66 west, 7 AM, and a dark heavy cloud is ahead in the feeble dawn light. Figuring "hey maybe I'll make it to work before the rain starts" I soon see I have no such luck, and the monsoon comes down hard like Lindsay Lohan's career. Though at first, it hits in small dribbles, and I flick on the first level intermittent wipers. That's when it went all Space Oddity on me.

As the rain increased, the wiper speed adjusted accordingly.

I am marvelling at this development, seeing as I never changed the wiper speed from intermittent, but it was as though the wipers just knew the rain was increasing. Were there sensors on the windshield? Was there a radio control attached to weather reports? Was this loaner car about to become sentient, and eventually grow to loathe me for my human frailties?

Let's just hope I can return it--or him, or her--to the dealership before it takes out its sweet automotive revenge.

How to Arbitrarily Become a Fan

Football watching for me is more an excuse to eat chilli and drink beer with friends while a game happens to be on than it is an actual interest in the game itself. That said, it always brings me joy to read about a defeat for the Washington Redskins. The only NFL team with a blatantly racist name, a team that has been priced out of the range of any middle class fan that is not an idiot willing to forgo health insurance in order to be able to afford to attend games, a team that has been inconveniently moved to Landover, making them now harder to reach for Washingtonians than Baltimore's stadium, a team owned by a completely irredeemable piece of garbage--yep, you can count on some satisfaction when I see them lose.

But football--even for a chilli-beer-buddies fan--should be about more than just rooting against one team. After all, despite the abysmal stewardship of Dan Snyder, who is to professional football what Casey Anthony was to motherhood, it is possible that the stars will align and the sun will go black like sackcloth and the Redskins may reach the Super Bowl one day. And when that day comes, I'll need a team to root for in order to beat them and make Snyder cry like the blubbering mess that he really is. What team to root for? I have some criteria:

1) The team can't play on an artificial field (or worse, a dome). If God meant for us to play football inside, he would have called it Houseball.

2) The team needs cheerleaders. There's something about underpaid grown women being ogled that brings some tradition to the game.

3) The team needs a cool helmet design. The Browns helmet is too cutesy, what with no logo. The Bengals aren't fooling anybody, we know you're not a tiger! The Vikings helmet is a giant fail, since the "horns" aren't literally protruding from the helmet in a way that allows for impaling the foe.

4) The owner's douchebaggery should not be nationally known.

That leaves some strong contenders! I have it down to Broncos, Ravens, Cardinals, and Buccaneers. Stay tuned! One of those four will be really good this year.

Ah, the Taxes

Everybody seems to have an opinion on taxes these days, and since no one seems to know what the hell they're talking about then I suppose I'm equally qualified to offer my thoughts on this. As we stand now, taxes will figure prominently in the 2012 election. My advice is to not listen to any campaign blather on the subject and instead hit your head into a rock because it'll at least be less painful and more likely to teach you something about taxes. A few thoughts:

1) All this crap about the rich paying their "fair share"--first, no one can really define "fair share". It is a fact that the rich pay the vast majority of the income taxes--that is not in dispute. (If you disagree, please spend more time introducing your head to the rock, because the rock might be smarter than you on this subject) It is also a fact that this is because the rich have the vast majority of the income--to tax everyone "equally"--that is, each taxpayer paying an equal dollar amount--would mean sending most people to debtor's prison or the federal government taking in about as much as the country of Equitorial Guinea. (This latter might please some Ayn Rand types) But determining how much more a rich person should pay than a poor person is not a simple matter of "fair"--everyone will have a different definition. For the left, "fair" is "a hell of a lot more than they're paying now". For the right, "fair" is "shut up and get a job". But cut the crap about "fairness" because taxes aren't about fair--they're about revenue.

2) That said, it is often pointed out that rich people often pay very low tax rates on their income by taking it in capital gains or tax exempt bonds or carried-over losses. (John Kerry's wife, Zsa Zsa Kerry, paid something like 14% on her multimillion dollar income for 2004) Tax simplification is a good idea, but keep in mind that each of those "loopholes" was put there for a reason. The government wants to encourage capital investing, so cap gains are taxed at a lower level. Unfair? Then maybe try telling your government to stop trying to social engineer through the tax code. Maybe when these clowns can stop themselves from Twittering photos of their penises to young women they can get around to fixing the tax code, but for now that's the way it is.

3) Warren Buffet can wax empathetic about how wrong it is that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. However, I will bet a Coke that the day his accountants fail to take advantage of some tax benefit that helps to lower his overall burden, he fires their asses faster than you can say "Berkshire Hathaway Hypocrite". This is illustrative--the rich will take advantage of the complicated tax code to lower their burdens--at high enough income levels, it is worth it to do this and pay good money for it, because the tax savings become significant. Don't like it? Then push to replace the Code with something far more simple.

4) At some point, taxes are going up. Sure, we can put this off a few more years. Just like Greece and Italy did.

5) If we don't want our economy to collapse, though, it'll mean everyone paying at least a bit more, soon. Yes, even the "poor"--if it means cutting out a pack of menthols a month, or cancelling your cable service, tough turkey. All I hear is "shared sacrifice"--well, everyone has to take a hit. The rich will obviously get the biggest hit--since that's where the most income is--but no one's getting spared. And any complaints can be directed towards the past several decades of spending on all these programs and wars and such that we as a society insisted on. And these things may be great--Iraq wasn't going to invade itself, you know!--but they all have a price. Maybe if we all started to feel it a bit more we'd think a bit more about whether it's worth having all this stuff. If so, great. If not, change.

6) Anyone who is just fine with putting the burden on some "other"--whether only wanting tax hikes for those richer than themselves, or only wanting spending cuts on those programs they themselves don't use--has removed themselves from intelligent discussion on this. They're really no different from the guy in the traffic jam who thinks a great solution to the traffic problem is for everyone else to stay home. And sadly, this seems to encompass everyone in Congress.

Wendy's Doing Stuff

Many great things happened in 1969. Richard Nixon took office as President, showing the world that the shy, awkward kid could grow up to be a disaster in the White House. The Woodstock festival showed the world that poor acoustics and a complete lack of sanitary facilities were no reason to prevent tens of thousands of derelicts from spending a few days in a field. And the Wendy's hamburger chain showed the world that fast food could be good eatin'.

I'll admit to being a strong Five Guys partisan, but Wendy's really has nothing to apologize for. (Except their "milk shakes" which are basically just hard iced cream in a cup. Liquify that bad boy!) So it was with confusion that I read today about Wendy's revamping their signature burgers in response to the competition from higher end burger joints.

The hierarchy has always been as such:

1) Burgers: Wendys > Burger King > McDonalds
2) Fries: McDonalds > Burger King > Wendys
3) Chicken Sandwich: Chick Fila = McDonalds Premium Deluxe
4) Milkshake: McDonalds = Throatburn!

Now, that was some complicated math, but Good Will Hunting could probably explain to you (when he wasn't busy liking apples and getting numbahs) that each of the major chains has their competitive advantages over the others. If you value fries more than the difference between the value of burgers, you'll go to McDs. If burgers are your thing, and you don't mind fries that are lackluster, you go to Five Guys. And Wendys gets great points all around, for their fries are decent and the burgers superb. If they want to beat someone out, the goal should be to McDonaldize their fries (or maybe add some neat dipping sauces, or melt actual cheese on the fries, or add gravy?). Their burgers are not their weak point by any stretch.

But, I certainly won't complain when any eatery tries to reinvent and improve--this is of course how great things have happened (e.g., the Big Mac). So I welcome our new burger overlords.

The HPV Madness

I have my problems with Rick Perry, current candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, but all this nonsense about the HPV vaccinations is a bunch of crap. It has been a line of attack from Michele "Don't Look Directly Into My Eyes" Bachmann who apparently is going all Jenny McCarthy now with her screed against vaccinations in general.

Apparently, his initiative in Texas to have girls as young as 12 vaccinated (or is it innoculated? I'm no doctor, but then neither is Michele Bachmann or her "Heal the Gay Out of You" husband) for the HPV virus, allowing parents who are just fine with their precious snowflakes catching the disease to opt out. HPV is very common--about half of all people who have had sex are carriers, and among women it can lead to cervical cancer and among both genders it can lead to oral cancers. So of course the religious nuts and assorted kooks oppose such measures.

Let's assume for a minute that children brought up in super-religious homes will adhere to abstinence education and proper family values, just like Bristol Palin did until she met a handsome pile of white trash who could grow his own mullet, but let's not dwell on the mentally limited Palins. So some day your precious snowflake daughter who of course would never have sexual contact with a boy grows to the ripe age of 18 and decides to marry a nice young man from a good fambly who doesn't play hockey but instead something wholesome like lacrosse, and then whoops, turns out this nice young man had a bit of a lapse on a weekend away from Oral Roberts University! And while doing a line of coke off the back of a naked hooker, he managed to also have sex with a coed who does not share his relgious values! And now, he got HPV, and when he does his married duties (only to conceive children, of course), he gives HPV to your daughter.

But hey, this could never happen, because we live in a world where abstinence education works, we can reasonably deport all illegal aliens, and we can pray away a heavy rainstorm. But let's not add rationality into a GOP primary debate!

Here's where it crosses the line from "stupid people suffering from their own stupid choices" to "stupid people making things worse for everyone else". Even with some opt-outs, vaccinations reaching a large enough percentage of the population would be enough to wipe out the disease, because it can only survive if it can be passed from host to host--and with enough people vaccinated it can be contained permanently. The Texas initiative made sense, and could have helped kill off a widespread virus that carries effects ranging from the uncomfortable (warts, etc.) to the lethal (cancers). And the deluded Bachmann's of the world can't live with that, since it would somehow encourage 12 year old girls to slut it up.

After all, nothing encourages a kid to want to go have sex like getting jabbed with a needle.

Relationship Warning Signs

I for one am constantly wondering whether I am about to have my relationship involuntarily terminated, and rather than have a direct talk with my significant other (or ask why that heavily cologned Raul keeps walking around our apartment naked when I get home from work) I choose to read useful articles like this one which indicate signs that your woman is about to leave you. Let's examine each of the warning signs:

1) She no longer confides in you, and she isn't interested in talking with you. Wait a minute! Confiding is what their female friends are for, it is a well known fact that women don't tell men their problems because all of our solutions involve a wrench or duct tape. And that is whether we're talking about cars, plumbing, or troublesome co-workers.

2) She does her best to avoid you by staying out late, making plans without you and spending more time with friends. So according to this clue, a woman is only happy in her relationship if she has no life outside of it? Who needs clingyness???

3) She doesn't complain about things she always complained about before. This may be because she thinks that she's going to leave you soon anyway. Or, this could mean she has matured enough to realize that she can't mold and change a man to her own desires and she has accepted you for the man you are.

4) She doesn't seem glad to see you when you get home; she no longer misses you. It could be because the stench of whiskey and sour defeat is nothing to be happy about when it comes in the front door.

5) She has no interest in sex. Eek!

6) She has a "whatever" attitude. She doesn't want to discuss any plans for the future or even for next week. This could just be a sign that you're with one of those "live for the now" types and maybe she knows that guys don't like to plan for the future either. Why is everything a bad sign?

7) She doesn't like to hold hands with you or be touched, kissed or hugged by you. When she kisses you, she acts like she's kissing a relative. When you go to kiss her, she turns her head so that you kiss her cheek. I've never seen a woman I was dating actually kiss a relative, so I have no basis of comparison here. They also learn quickly that holding hands is only good for clotheslining tourists on the sidewalk.

8) Her friends and family act a bit different and uncomfortable around you because she has told them that she intends to leave you. More likely they're acting different and uncomfortable because of the drunken racist rant you went on the previous Sunday dinner. But it was their fault for bringing up touchy subjects like weather and traffic.

So, this list is less than helpful! Any suggestions for better signs of danger in a relationship?